The Jihad Against A Seattle Cartoonist - HUMAN EVENTS: "It should be front-page news in every newspaper in the country: Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris has given up her job, her home, and even her identity because of death threats for Islamic supremacists. That Islamic jihadists can force an American citizen into hiding for exercising her freedom of speech is bad enough; that her cause has aroused only indifference from the media and the nation’s leading officials is even worse.
Norris was a popular cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly. Her life changed forever a few months ago when she announced “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” on Facebook. It was a lark, but with a serious point about violent threats and intimidation: if Islamic supremacists were threatening to murder European cartoonists Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks because of their cartoons of Muhammad, and anyone else who dared to draw him, then if everyone drew him, the thugs couldn’t possibly kill us all, could they?
And now Norris herself has become a living illustration of how right her point was in the first place, and yet the political and media elites are not standing with her. “On the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI,” the Seattle Weekly explained, “she is, as they put it, ‘going ghost’: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program–except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.”
This is in sharp contrast to the Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is receiving protection from the New York City Police Department because of threats he has allegedly received. In even sharper contrast, Gainsville, Florida authorities have announced that they plan to bill the abortive Koran-burner Terry Jones $180,000 for security costs for the Koran-burning event that he ultimately called off after a blizzard of international publicity, all negative – despite the fact that they never bothered to warn Jones beforehand that he would be footing the bill.
Molly Norris’s cause should be taken up by all free people – not least the President of the United States. Obama could have explained that human beings control their own reactions to things. If Muslims chose yet again to riot and murder because of Terry Jones or Molly Norris, that would be a choice they would be making out of an unlimited array of other choices. Instead, Western authorities have fallen into the Islamic supremacists' trap and are starting to behave in just the way they want them to: thinking that they must not do certain things, because if they do, there will be violence from Muslims. Yet that violence is in every case solely the responsibility of the perpetrator, not of anyone else.
Obama could have said that the idea that Molly Norris would have to give up her career and live in hiding because of cartoons is unconscionable. He could have told the Islamic world that cartoons depicting Muhammad did not harm Muslims, and that the willingness of some Muslims to commit murder over such depictions was the only thing that made people care to draw Muhammad in the first place.
Obama could also have said that to threaten people with death because of cartoons was destructive to free speech and hence to free societies — and as such, it was something that the U.S. would do everything it could to resist. He could have announced that Molly Norris and others who were threatened for exercising their freedom of speech would be given full round-the-clock protection — and that if violent protests and riots over cartoons broke out in areas where American troops were deployed, those troops would put down those riots and protect the innocent to the fullest possible extent.
Apparently when Muslims behave with violent irrationality, Obama thinks that it is entirely the responsibility of non-Muslims to clean up the mess they make. In these dark days we don’t have any leaders who will stand up for the freedom of expression, explaining its importance as a bulwark against tyranny. Molly Norris, wherever she is, and the embattled free people of the United States, deserve better.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Townhall - Obama: Not Rough Enough?
Townhall - Obama: Not Rough Enough?:
NBC Universal is getting ridiculous with its shameless courting of President Obama. On the morning of Sept. 27, NBC's Matt Lauer interviewed Obama for a half-hour with no commercials. But it wasn't just on NBC. Their devotion to El Jefe is so transparent they aired it live on most of their other cable properties, including MSNBC, USA, Syfy, Bravo, Oxygen, Chiller, Sleuth, Universal HD and Universal Sports.
The announced topic was education, but Lauer also turned to politics, and that's where the NBC host just regurgitated the current liberal complaint: Obama is apparently too calm and not tough enough toward Republicans. Lauer noted Obama's recent declaration that 'The Republicans, they're treating me like a dog.' He didn't ask for proof for that bizarre and whiny claim. He underlined it like it was the gospel truth.
Then he begged for ratcheting up the 'rigor' in Obama's attacks on opponents: 'Former President Clinton said he doesn't think the Democrats, and you included, have been rigorous enough in pushing back against some of the Republican attacks. Over these next five weeks, Mr. President, do you intend to change your tone or your emotion in terms of your pushing back?'
(Try to imagine NBC welcoming Jim DeMint or Newt Gingrich to the studio and Lauer saying suggestively 'Some think your tone has been too timid in attacking Democrats. Do you intend to ratchet up your attacks as the election nears?')
The biggest myth in the Obama arsenal is that Obama is some kind of blissfully bipartisan mediator not prone to mean-spirited messaging. It should be obvious to anyone with ears that he was a hardball-throwing liberal throughout the presidential campaign, and he's grown even more partisan since he won and the Democrats took over everything.
The president has to be shocked when he hears this too-wimpy complaint. He gently replied that anyone who's 'heard me speak around the country over the last several months' would know he's declared 'a very sharp difference with the Republicans' -- even as he admits he's hammering them at every turn. In his Saturday radio address two days previous, Obama accused the GOP of wanting to cut taxes for the super-rich and 'cut the middle class loose to fend for itself.' He called the new Pledge for America document 'an echo of a disastrous decade we can't afford to relive.'
Obama's real problem is his atrocious record. Much of that 'disastrous decade' featured an unemployment rate between 4 and 6 percent, which right now sounds like a dream. The president unspools crazy anti-GOP lines like this one to Lauer: 'They proposed $4 trillion worth of tax cuts and $16 billion in spending cuts.' Lauer didn't follow up with any notion that (a) the trillions in 'tax cuts' aren't actually 'cuts,' but keeping the current tax rates the same. Then there's (b), the Republicans propose to peel spending back to Fiscal Year 2008 levels, which is -- if they ever accomplished it -- many multiples of '$16 billion in spending cuts.'
Network anchors buy (and sell) every silly thing the Democrats have to say on fiscal issues, including the mind-boggling whopper that adding millions of people to federally funded health insurance under ObamaCare is going to reduce the deficit.
But that wasn't the only question where Lauer worried out loud to Obama that his mythical status is falling apart. Lauer referred to the other recent NBC hour of free airtime to Obama, on CNBC, where the discouraged Obama supporter said she was tired of defending him. An incredulous Lauer suggested she was feeling 'in some way, you have lost touch with the struggles of the average person on the street. I say it with some sense of irony, because you began your career in public service as a community organizer. That is all about getting in touch with people on the street. So how can this criticism now be coming up of a guy who started out as a community organizer?'
Obama correctly suggested that this discouraged woman, Velma Hart, is still an enthusiastic supporter, but like many liberals, she's in disbelief that Obama's socialism didn't work. She told Michelle Singletary of The Washington Post: 'I guess I started to believe, on some small level, that he had a magic wand. Maybe in that respect my question was somewhat unfair.' She also told the Post she would have hugged him if he told her that recovery was coming, but 'Right now, you're expecting too much from me.'
The liberals at NBC Universal want to hug Obama, too, with all the free airtime he wants. But first, they want him to put his every ounce of civility aside and pick up the mud bucket. Liberals can't maintain control of Washington without casting the conservatives as the incoming embodiment of all evil.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
NBC Universal is getting ridiculous with its shameless courting of President Obama. On the morning of Sept. 27, NBC's Matt Lauer interviewed Obama for a half-hour with no commercials. But it wasn't just on NBC. Their devotion to El Jefe is so transparent they aired it live on most of their other cable properties, including MSNBC, USA, Syfy, Bravo, Oxygen, Chiller, Sleuth, Universal HD and Universal Sports.
The announced topic was education, but Lauer also turned to politics, and that's where the NBC host just regurgitated the current liberal complaint: Obama is apparently too calm and not tough enough toward Republicans. Lauer noted Obama's recent declaration that 'The Republicans, they're treating me like a dog.' He didn't ask for proof for that bizarre and whiny claim. He underlined it like it was the gospel truth.
Then he begged for ratcheting up the 'rigor' in Obama's attacks on opponents: 'Former President Clinton said he doesn't think the Democrats, and you included, have been rigorous enough in pushing back against some of the Republican attacks. Over these next five weeks, Mr. President, do you intend to change your tone or your emotion in terms of your pushing back?'
(Try to imagine NBC welcoming Jim DeMint or Newt Gingrich to the studio and Lauer saying suggestively 'Some think your tone has been too timid in attacking Democrats. Do you intend to ratchet up your attacks as the election nears?')
The biggest myth in the Obama arsenal is that Obama is some kind of blissfully bipartisan mediator not prone to mean-spirited messaging. It should be obvious to anyone with ears that he was a hardball-throwing liberal throughout the presidential campaign, and he's grown even more partisan since he won and the Democrats took over everything.
The president has to be shocked when he hears this too-wimpy complaint. He gently replied that anyone who's 'heard me speak around the country over the last several months' would know he's declared 'a very sharp difference with the Republicans' -- even as he admits he's hammering them at every turn. In his Saturday radio address two days previous, Obama accused the GOP of wanting to cut taxes for the super-rich and 'cut the middle class loose to fend for itself.' He called the new Pledge for America document 'an echo of a disastrous decade we can't afford to relive.'
Obama's real problem is his atrocious record. Much of that 'disastrous decade' featured an unemployment rate between 4 and 6 percent, which right now sounds like a dream. The president unspools crazy anti-GOP lines like this one to Lauer: 'They proposed $4 trillion worth of tax cuts and $16 billion in spending cuts.' Lauer didn't follow up with any notion that (a) the trillions in 'tax cuts' aren't actually 'cuts,' but keeping the current tax rates the same. Then there's (b), the Republicans propose to peel spending back to Fiscal Year 2008 levels, which is -- if they ever accomplished it -- many multiples of '$16 billion in spending cuts.'
Network anchors buy (and sell) every silly thing the Democrats have to say on fiscal issues, including the mind-boggling whopper that adding millions of people to federally funded health insurance under ObamaCare is going to reduce the deficit.
But that wasn't the only question where Lauer worried out loud to Obama that his mythical status is falling apart. Lauer referred to the other recent NBC hour of free airtime to Obama, on CNBC, where the discouraged Obama supporter said she was tired of defending him. An incredulous Lauer suggested she was feeling 'in some way, you have lost touch with the struggles of the average person on the street. I say it with some sense of irony, because you began your career in public service as a community organizer. That is all about getting in touch with people on the street. So how can this criticism now be coming up of a guy who started out as a community organizer?'
Obama correctly suggested that this discouraged woman, Velma Hart, is still an enthusiastic supporter, but like many liberals, she's in disbelief that Obama's socialism didn't work. She told Michelle Singletary of The Washington Post: 'I guess I started to believe, on some small level, that he had a magic wand. Maybe in that respect my question was somewhat unfair.' She also told the Post she would have hugged him if he told her that recovery was coming, but 'Right now, you're expecting too much from me.'
The liberals at NBC Universal want to hug Obama, too, with all the free airtime he wants. But first, they want him to put his every ounce of civility aside and pick up the mud bucket. Liberals can't maintain control of Washington without casting the conservatives as the incoming embodiment of all evil.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Illinois Professor Says Chanting ‘USA’ is Bellicose Propaganda by:Warner Todd Huston | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010
Illinois Professor Says Chanting ‘USA’ is Bellicose Propaganda by:Warner Todd Huston | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010:
Oh, you ignorant Americans with your venal patriotic chants of “USA, USA” at sporting events. Your bellicosity isn’t patriotism, it’s propaganda and lowly militarism… so says David Green, University Administrator and member of the University of Illinois Institute of Government & Public Affairs.
Green’s poisoned pen letter to American patriots was published by the Daily Illini, an “independent newspaper” at the U of I, and features every manner of attack on America.
Green’s vituperation covers the gamut of anti-Americanism: America is “imperialist,” she is unconcerned over the deaths of Muslims, America is”nativist,” and patriots are prone to “obnoxious, fake-macho, chicken-hawk” chants. In other words all that is wrong with the world is evinced in the United States of America.
The professor’s screed was short, but filled with hate for America:
The vast majority of 9/11 observances in this country cannot be seen as politically neutral events. Implicit in their nature are the notions that lives lost at the World Trade Center are more valuable than lives lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere; that the motives of the 9/11 attackers had nothing to do with genuine grievances in the Islamic world regarding American imperialism; and that the U.S. has been justified in the subsequent killing of hundreds of thousands in so-called retaliation.
The observance at Saturday’s football game was no different. A moment of silence was followed by a military airplane flyover; in between, Block-I students chanted “USA, USA.” This was neither patriotism nor remembrance in any justifiable sense, but politicization, militarism, propaganda and bellicosity. The University is a public institution that encompasses the political views of all, not just the most (falsely) “patriotic.” Athletic planners should cease such exploitation for political purposes. They might at least consider how most Muslim students, American or otherwise, would respond to this nativist display; or better, Muslims and others that live their lives under the threat of our planes, drones and soldiers.
The overwhelmingly white, privileged, Block-I students should be ashamed of their obnoxious, fake-macho, chicken-hawk chant, while poverty-drafted members of their cohort fight and die in illegal and immoral wars for the control of oil. University administrators need to eliminate from all events such “patriotic” observances, which in this country cannot be separated from implicit justifications for state-sponsored killing.
Looking at the comments section finds very little support for this anti-American and not everyone at the Daily Illini are in love with this hater as an October 11 entry from 2005 shows.
But this isn’t the first time that Green went down the path of hate for the west. Green has penned many antiAmerican, anti-Jewish screeds over the last decade. In 2005, for instance, Green wrote a review of one of Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein’s books that proved that Green is a supporter of Palestine Liberation Organization and is critical of the so-called Holocaust industry.
Like a well-worn hat, Green tries on the old claim that the American’s actions at abu Ghraib and “Israeli torture” are materially the same as the Nazi-generated Holocaust. In his review Green intimates that Israel perpetrates “criminal behavior” that is little different than Hitler’s.
In March Green wrote a screed on the supposed iron-fisted Israel Lobby where he also says that the U.S. is motivated solely by imperialism in its war on terror.
Green is also a member of the Champaign/Urbana chapter of Anti-War, Anti-Racism Effort and is known as a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace which absorbed Not In My Name, the latter formerly based in Chicago.
It is infuriating that this man makes his living feeding off the taxpayers of the state of Illinois. According to the CollegiateTimes.com website, Green’s 2009 salary was $36,388 of Illinois tax dollars. This is the sort of anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-western “academic” that infests the American university system from north to south and east to west. These people are living off the taxpayers and spreading their hate every single day.
If you would like to contact Green and let him know how you feel, his office phone number is (217) 333-3231 and is email is dlgreen@illinois.edu .
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Oh, you ignorant Americans with your venal patriotic chants of “USA, USA” at sporting events. Your bellicosity isn’t patriotism, it’s propaganda and lowly militarism… so says David Green, University Administrator and member of the University of Illinois Institute of Government & Public Affairs.
Green’s poisoned pen letter to American patriots was published by the Daily Illini, an “independent newspaper” at the U of I, and features every manner of attack on America.
Green’s vituperation covers the gamut of anti-Americanism: America is “imperialist,” she is unconcerned over the deaths of Muslims, America is”nativist,” and patriots are prone to “obnoxious, fake-macho, chicken-hawk” chants. In other words all that is wrong with the world is evinced in the United States of America.
The professor’s screed was short, but filled with hate for America:
The vast majority of 9/11 observances in this country cannot be seen as politically neutral events. Implicit in their nature are the notions that lives lost at the World Trade Center are more valuable than lives lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere; that the motives of the 9/11 attackers had nothing to do with genuine grievances in the Islamic world regarding American imperialism; and that the U.S. has been justified in the subsequent killing of hundreds of thousands in so-called retaliation.
The observance at Saturday’s football game was no different. A moment of silence was followed by a military airplane flyover; in between, Block-I students chanted “USA, USA.” This was neither patriotism nor remembrance in any justifiable sense, but politicization, militarism, propaganda and bellicosity. The University is a public institution that encompasses the political views of all, not just the most (falsely) “patriotic.” Athletic planners should cease such exploitation for political purposes. They might at least consider how most Muslim students, American or otherwise, would respond to this nativist display; or better, Muslims and others that live their lives under the threat of our planes, drones and soldiers.
The overwhelmingly white, privileged, Block-I students should be ashamed of their obnoxious, fake-macho, chicken-hawk chant, while poverty-drafted members of their cohort fight and die in illegal and immoral wars for the control of oil. University administrators need to eliminate from all events such “patriotic” observances, which in this country cannot be separated from implicit justifications for state-sponsored killing.
Looking at the comments section finds very little support for this anti-American and not everyone at the Daily Illini are in love with this hater as an October 11 entry from 2005 shows.
But this isn’t the first time that Green went down the path of hate for the west. Green has penned many antiAmerican, anti-Jewish screeds over the last decade. In 2005, for instance, Green wrote a review of one of Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein’s books that proved that Green is a supporter of Palestine Liberation Organization and is critical of the so-called Holocaust industry.
Like a well-worn hat, Green tries on the old claim that the American’s actions at abu Ghraib and “Israeli torture” are materially the same as the Nazi-generated Holocaust. In his review Green intimates that Israel perpetrates “criminal behavior” that is little different than Hitler’s.
In March Green wrote a screed on the supposed iron-fisted Israel Lobby where he also says that the U.S. is motivated solely by imperialism in its war on terror.
Green is also a member of the Champaign/Urbana chapter of Anti-War, Anti-Racism Effort and is known as a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace which absorbed Not In My Name, the latter formerly based in Chicago.
It is infuriating that this man makes his living feeding off the taxpayers of the state of Illinois. According to the CollegiateTimes.com website, Green’s 2009 salary was $36,388 of Illinois tax dollars. This is the sort of anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-western “academic” that infests the American university system from north to south and east to west. These people are living off the taxpayers and spreading their hate every single day.
If you would like to contact Green and let him know how you feel, his office phone number is (217) 333-3231 and is email is dlgreen@illinois.edu .
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Townhall - 29 Reasons Why BHO Is the Greatest President Ever (If You Hate America)
Townhall - 29 Reasons Why BHO Is the Greatest President Ever (If You Hate America):
Y’know, if I were a terrorist I think I’d hit America right now because I don’t think we’ve been this vulnerable since Clinton gutted our military, worked against our national security, and paved the way for 9/11.
For the record, I am not a terrorist, no matter what the mutant Janeane Garofalo says. How do I know I’m not a terrorist? Well, you pretty much have to be a Muslim or a progressive to be one, and I’m not Islamic but rather a Christian and a conservative.
For those unfamiliar with Christianity, one of the tenets of this faith disallows its followers to blow innocent people up while they’re working, riding a bus, flying home to see Granny for Christmas, or getting a slice of pepperoni at Famous Ray’s. The Koran, on the other hand is, how shall I say … more lenient … when it comes to such issues, and so are the likes of toads such as Bill Ayers. But I digress.
Regarding my assessment of our nation’s security (or lack thereof), I am not the only one out there with this opinion. Oh, no Spanky. There are more of us. Many more. As in many, many more.
Matter of fact, bestselling author and military analyst, Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, formerly Clinton’s senior military aide in charge of the “nuclear football” (which is not code for Monica’s plus-size lingerie bag), also thinks we’re incredibly susceptible to being attacked on a scale much larger that 9/11. He also believes … wait for it … that BHO is America’s biggest national security threat.
Who’s this “Buzz” guy, and why should we perk up and listen to what he says? Well, he’s not an obese commie who does shoddy documentary crap films, for one thing; nor is he a chunky, redheaded, unfunny, nerve-grating female comic who likes to spew her ill-informed views on HLN.
Nope, the good Colonel is a man who has honorably served our nation and was Billy’s top gun during the Clinton Administration. Patterson witnessed firsthand how William J. whittled away our military might, which Buzz meticulously documented in his New York Times bestselling book, Dereliction of Duty. Did you miss that one?
Patterson, however, in his latest tome, Conduct Unbecoming: How Obama is Destroying the Military and Endangering Our Security, says to the effect that Clinton looks like Genghis Khan on HGH compared to how Obama is dismantling the U.S. and thereby setting us up to be brutalized by those who detest the U.S. and that for which it stands.
Don’t believe me, MSNBC’er? Well check out these ditties I gleaned from Buzz’s most recent in regard to how Obama has gutted us from a security standpoint in just his first eighteen months (oh, how giddy Bin Laden must be seeing us morphing into a weak horse).
1. January - December 2009: The Administration refuses to detain the vast majority of illegal workers they find by drastically revising policy, such as halting workplace raids and stripping local law enforcement of the ability to pursue illegals. Also, terrorist detainees are ordered to be tried in civilian courts.
2. February 26, 2009: White House announces plans to slash defense budget, which undermines the U.S. military’s ability to meet its commitments.
3. March 13, 2009: No longer “enemy combatants,” terrorist supporters have new legal protections against being detained.
4. April 6, 2009: Obama gives speech in Turkey, apologizing for America, even as Turkey embraces Iran and Syria.
5. April 16, 2009: The Justice Department’s legal opinions on terrorist interrogations are disclosed and overruled by the Obama Administration.
6. May 21, 2009: President signs the US-UAE Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which is intended to clear the way for the United Arab Emirates to gain access to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology.
7. May 2009: Obama Administration slashes missile defense funding and capabilities.
8. June 2009: CIA director Panetta kills program to explore options for assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
9. September 17, 2009: Obama Administration abandons Poland and Czech missile defense.
10. October 19, 2009: White House floats Iranian nuclear fuel swap offer, saying that it is willing to give Iran all of the enriched uranium they need to run Iran’s nuclear plant in Natanz.
11. December 2, 2009: Obama announces Afghanistan surge and prompt withdrawal of troops, with will expose U.S. troops to higher levels of risk.
12. December, 4, 2009: End of U.S . on-site inspection activities in Russia.
13. December 8, 2009: President sends U.S. Ambassador to North Korea for direct one-on-one negotiations.
14. December 29, 2009: National declassification order, which results in the release of over 400 million pages of Cold War-era records, exposing a wealth of secret data on U.S.-Soviet relations.
15. January 7, 2010: Obama blames “Christmas Day Bomber” on intelligence instead of fixing the problem.
16. January 20, 2010: China is no longer a Top Intelligence Priority.
17. March 25, 2010: U.S. backs away from tougher components of nuclear Iran sanctions proposal.
18. April 7, 2010: Terms “Islam,” “Jihad” banned from National Security Strategy.
19. April 8, 2010: New Gates-Obama plan announced to gut military.
20. April 17, 2010: Secretary of Defense Gates warns that U.S. has no long-range plan to deal with nuclear Iran.
21. April 27, 2010: Obama Administration refuses to release documents on the Fort Hood shooting to Senate Committee.
22. April 30, 2010: Department of Defense announces obesity as major security threat.
23. May 2, 2010: U.S. publicly reveals the size of nuclear arsenal, which until now has been a closely-guarded secret.
24. May 8, 2010: Secretary of Defense Gates calls for more sweeping cuts to the defense budget—around $10 billion for 2012.
25. May 24, 2010: Counter-terrorism Advisor Brennan praises foreign terrorist group Hezbollah.
26. May 27, 2010: Counter-terrorism Advisor Brennan says Jihadists are not America’s enemy.
27. May 27, 2010: Obama Administration’s new national security strategy is to focus on homegrown threats, says terror is not an enemy.
28. June 11, 2010: Obama White House seeks to ease U.S. sanctions against Iran.
29. July 6, 2010: Obama Administration sues Arizona over immigration legislation.
Do you feel safer after reading that partial list, children? I know I don’t. If you want to be even more freaked out—as in freaked out to do something like vote BHO out and champion those who still dig America and think national security ought to be a major issue (duh)—you must log on to Amazon.com, find Buzz’s book, Conduct Unbecoming, and then click your mouse and melt your plastic and buy this razor-sharp, easy-to-read and comprehensive book on how Barack is setting us up to be crushed.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Y’know, if I were a terrorist I think I’d hit America right now because I don’t think we’ve been this vulnerable since Clinton gutted our military, worked against our national security, and paved the way for 9/11.
For the record, I am not a terrorist, no matter what the mutant Janeane Garofalo says. How do I know I’m not a terrorist? Well, you pretty much have to be a Muslim or a progressive to be one, and I’m not Islamic but rather a Christian and a conservative.
For those unfamiliar with Christianity, one of the tenets of this faith disallows its followers to blow innocent people up while they’re working, riding a bus, flying home to see Granny for Christmas, or getting a slice of pepperoni at Famous Ray’s. The Koran, on the other hand is, how shall I say … more lenient … when it comes to such issues, and so are the likes of toads such as Bill Ayers. But I digress.
Regarding my assessment of our nation’s security (or lack thereof), I am not the only one out there with this opinion. Oh, no Spanky. There are more of us. Many more. As in many, many more.
Matter of fact, bestselling author and military analyst, Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, formerly Clinton’s senior military aide in charge of the “nuclear football” (which is not code for Monica’s plus-size lingerie bag), also thinks we’re incredibly susceptible to being attacked on a scale much larger that 9/11. He also believes … wait for it … that BHO is America’s biggest national security threat.
Who’s this “Buzz” guy, and why should we perk up and listen to what he says? Well, he’s not an obese commie who does shoddy documentary crap films, for one thing; nor is he a chunky, redheaded, unfunny, nerve-grating female comic who likes to spew her ill-informed views on HLN.
Nope, the good Colonel is a man who has honorably served our nation and was Billy’s top gun during the Clinton Administration. Patterson witnessed firsthand how William J. whittled away our military might, which Buzz meticulously documented in his New York Times bestselling book, Dereliction of Duty. Did you miss that one?
Patterson, however, in his latest tome, Conduct Unbecoming: How Obama is Destroying the Military and Endangering Our Security, says to the effect that Clinton looks like Genghis Khan on HGH compared to how Obama is dismantling the U.S. and thereby setting us up to be brutalized by those who detest the U.S. and that for which it stands.
Don’t believe me, MSNBC’er? Well check out these ditties I gleaned from Buzz’s most recent in regard to how Obama has gutted us from a security standpoint in just his first eighteen months (oh, how giddy Bin Laden must be seeing us morphing into a weak horse).
1. January - December 2009: The Administration refuses to detain the vast majority of illegal workers they find by drastically revising policy, such as halting workplace raids and stripping local law enforcement of the ability to pursue illegals. Also, terrorist detainees are ordered to be tried in civilian courts.
2. February 26, 2009: White House announces plans to slash defense budget, which undermines the U.S. military’s ability to meet its commitments.
3. March 13, 2009: No longer “enemy combatants,” terrorist supporters have new legal protections against being detained.
4. April 6, 2009: Obama gives speech in Turkey, apologizing for America, even as Turkey embraces Iran and Syria.
5. April 16, 2009: The Justice Department’s legal opinions on terrorist interrogations are disclosed and overruled by the Obama Administration.
6. May 21, 2009: President signs the US-UAE Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which is intended to clear the way for the United Arab Emirates to gain access to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology.
7. May 2009: Obama Administration slashes missile defense funding and capabilities.
8. June 2009: CIA director Panetta kills program to explore options for assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
9. September 17, 2009: Obama Administration abandons Poland and Czech missile defense.
10. October 19, 2009: White House floats Iranian nuclear fuel swap offer, saying that it is willing to give Iran all of the enriched uranium they need to run Iran’s nuclear plant in Natanz.
11. December 2, 2009: Obama announces Afghanistan surge and prompt withdrawal of troops, with will expose U.S. troops to higher levels of risk.
12. December, 4, 2009: End of U.S . on-site inspection activities in Russia.
13. December 8, 2009: President sends U.S. Ambassador to North Korea for direct one-on-one negotiations.
14. December 29, 2009: National declassification order, which results in the release of over 400 million pages of Cold War-era records, exposing a wealth of secret data on U.S.-Soviet relations.
15. January 7, 2010: Obama blames “Christmas Day Bomber” on intelligence instead of fixing the problem.
16. January 20, 2010: China is no longer a Top Intelligence Priority.
17. March 25, 2010: U.S. backs away from tougher components of nuclear Iran sanctions proposal.
18. April 7, 2010: Terms “Islam,” “Jihad” banned from National Security Strategy.
19. April 8, 2010: New Gates-Obama plan announced to gut military.
20. April 17, 2010: Secretary of Defense Gates warns that U.S. has no long-range plan to deal with nuclear Iran.
21. April 27, 2010: Obama Administration refuses to release documents on the Fort Hood shooting to Senate Committee.
22. April 30, 2010: Department of Defense announces obesity as major security threat.
23. May 2, 2010: U.S. publicly reveals the size of nuclear arsenal, which until now has been a closely-guarded secret.
24. May 8, 2010: Secretary of Defense Gates calls for more sweeping cuts to the defense budget—around $10 billion for 2012.
25. May 24, 2010: Counter-terrorism Advisor Brennan praises foreign terrorist group Hezbollah.
26. May 27, 2010: Counter-terrorism Advisor Brennan says Jihadists are not America’s enemy.
27. May 27, 2010: Obama Administration’s new national security strategy is to focus on homegrown threats, says terror is not an enemy.
28. June 11, 2010: Obama White House seeks to ease U.S. sanctions against Iran.
29. July 6, 2010: Obama Administration sues Arizona over immigration legislation.
Do you feel safer after reading that partial list, children? I know I don’t. If you want to be even more freaked out—as in freaked out to do something like vote BHO out and champion those who still dig America and think national security ought to be a major issue (duh)—you must log on to Amazon.com, find Buzz’s book, Conduct Unbecoming, and then click your mouse and melt your plastic and buy this razor-sharp, easy-to-read and comprehensive book on how Barack is setting us up to be crushed.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Townhall - Obama's Muslim Mess
Townhall - Obama's Muslim Mess:
“The bottom line is this – if the Koran is burned, our troops will be in greater danger. It’s that simple…”
That remark came from a certain military officer (an officer who will remain unnamed here), during a special press briefing I attended regarding upcoming foreign troop deployments.
The news of a threatened “Koran burning ceremony” to be held in Florida was being widely reported at the time, and a journalist had asked the Officer for comment.
In response to the Officer’s comment, I followed up by asking “if Americans didn’t exercise their Second Amendment rights, would the troops be safer?”
“ With all due respect, I think you’re politicizing the matter, sir,” the Officer said to me, “and I have no further comment…”
It was appropriate that the Officer had “no further comment.” But I wasn’t politicizing anything. I was asking a very serious, sobering, and legitimate question, a question that all Americans should be asking in the face of the Obama Administration’s disposition towards Islamic Radicalism.
For the entire duration of his Presidency, Barack Obama has articulated a vision of “the Muslim Word,” as he calls it, and practitioners of the Muslim faith, that conveniently ignores what is frighteningly obvious to most Americans: that some of the most horrific and gruesome murders and terrorist acts on the planet these days are committed by people who call themselves Muslims, and claim to be following the edicts of the Koran.
President Obama set this pattern of denial in motion back in June of 2009, when he made good on his campaign promise of delivering a speech in the capitol city of a predominantly Muslim nation.
Speaking at Cairo University in that month, the President said, in part, “I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”
Five months after that speech, the United States sustained what previously may have been unthinkable – a terrorist attack at an Army base in Texas, all at the hands of an Army Major who was – yes, you guessed it – a Muslim. Major Nidal Hasan, a Medical Doctor in the U.S. Army, shot and killed 13 other Army soldiers and wounded 30 other people. He claimed that he was operating in allegiance to the Koran, and his Muslim faith.
As President Obama spoke at the Memorial Service for the dead soldiers, he referred to the murders as “craven acts,” and insisted that “no just and loving God looks upon then with favor.” But how are we to take these remarks?
Was President Obama insinuating that the “God” of Islam is not “just” and not “loving?” This proposition is doubtful. More likely, the President’s remarks were intended to suggest that Mr. Hasan wasn’t really behaving as a “real Muslim” would, so, therefore, these “craven acts” were no indictment on Islam.
But since the massacre at Fort Hood, we have sustained two other terrorist attacks on American soil – the “underwear bomber” case on Christmas Day last year, and the effort to blow up Times Square in Manhattan last Spring. Both of these incidents were terrorist attacks (despite Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano’s claim that “The system worked” last December – it did not), attacks that were both fortunately thwarted before they could be carried out to full fruition.
All three of these acts were carried-out by people who called themselves Muslims. And if these terrorists each called themselves a “Muslim,” who am I – and who is Barack Obama – to insist that they are not?
President Obama’s timid stance with “the Muslim World” stands in stark contrast to this undeniable reality: In America, we are a very diverse bunch, but we generally get along with each other pretty well.
We are Christians and Jews and Secularists. We are theologically conservative Protestants and Catholics and Jews, and we are theologically liberal Protestants and Catholics and Jews. We are Atheists and Buddhists and Mormons and Bahai’s and completely irreligious. “Church” and “synagogue” and “temple” happen every weekend in America, as do sporting events and naps and work and play. As Americans we go about these activities according to our own wishes, being disagreeable with each other at times, yes, but still living together and getting along.
But then, there is this one particular group in America and around the world that can’t seem to play by America’s “we all get along” terms. According to our President, our lives are jeopardized if we so much as state the obvious about this group.
If our President continues with his denial of the obvious, he will continue to alienate America, and weaken our nation abroad.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
“The bottom line is this – if the Koran is burned, our troops will be in greater danger. It’s that simple…”
That remark came from a certain military officer (an officer who will remain unnamed here), during a special press briefing I attended regarding upcoming foreign troop deployments.
The news of a threatened “Koran burning ceremony” to be held in Florida was being widely reported at the time, and a journalist had asked the Officer for comment.
In response to the Officer’s comment, I followed up by asking “if Americans didn’t exercise their Second Amendment rights, would the troops be safer?”
“ With all due respect, I think you’re politicizing the matter, sir,” the Officer said to me, “and I have no further comment…”
It was appropriate that the Officer had “no further comment.” But I wasn’t politicizing anything. I was asking a very serious, sobering, and legitimate question, a question that all Americans should be asking in the face of the Obama Administration’s disposition towards Islamic Radicalism.
For the entire duration of his Presidency, Barack Obama has articulated a vision of “the Muslim Word,” as he calls it, and practitioners of the Muslim faith, that conveniently ignores what is frighteningly obvious to most Americans: that some of the most horrific and gruesome murders and terrorist acts on the planet these days are committed by people who call themselves Muslims, and claim to be following the edicts of the Koran.
President Obama set this pattern of denial in motion back in June of 2009, when he made good on his campaign promise of delivering a speech in the capitol city of a predominantly Muslim nation.
Speaking at Cairo University in that month, the President said, in part, “I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”
Five months after that speech, the United States sustained what previously may have been unthinkable – a terrorist attack at an Army base in Texas, all at the hands of an Army Major who was – yes, you guessed it – a Muslim. Major Nidal Hasan, a Medical Doctor in the U.S. Army, shot and killed 13 other Army soldiers and wounded 30 other people. He claimed that he was operating in allegiance to the Koran, and his Muslim faith.
As President Obama spoke at the Memorial Service for the dead soldiers, he referred to the murders as “craven acts,” and insisted that “no just and loving God looks upon then with favor.” But how are we to take these remarks?
Was President Obama insinuating that the “God” of Islam is not “just” and not “loving?” This proposition is doubtful. More likely, the President’s remarks were intended to suggest that Mr. Hasan wasn’t really behaving as a “real Muslim” would, so, therefore, these “craven acts” were no indictment on Islam.
But since the massacre at Fort Hood, we have sustained two other terrorist attacks on American soil – the “underwear bomber” case on Christmas Day last year, and the effort to blow up Times Square in Manhattan last Spring. Both of these incidents were terrorist attacks (despite Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano’s claim that “The system worked” last December – it did not), attacks that were both fortunately thwarted before they could be carried out to full fruition.
All three of these acts were carried-out by people who called themselves Muslims. And if these terrorists each called themselves a “Muslim,” who am I – and who is Barack Obama – to insist that they are not?
President Obama’s timid stance with “the Muslim World” stands in stark contrast to this undeniable reality: In America, we are a very diverse bunch, but we generally get along with each other pretty well.
We are Christians and Jews and Secularists. We are theologically conservative Protestants and Catholics and Jews, and we are theologically liberal Protestants and Catholics and Jews. We are Atheists and Buddhists and Mormons and Bahai’s and completely irreligious. “Church” and “synagogue” and “temple” happen every weekend in America, as do sporting events and naps and work and play. As Americans we go about these activities according to our own wishes, being disagreeable with each other at times, yes, but still living together and getting along.
But then, there is this one particular group in America and around the world that can’t seem to play by America’s “we all get along” terms. According to our President, our lives are jeopardized if we so much as state the obvious about this group.
If our President continues with his denial of the obvious, he will continue to alienate America, and weaken our nation abroad.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Townhall - Muslims Behaving Badly
Townhall - Muslims Behaving Badly:
The freedom to speak freely is a hallmark of the American constitutional tradition, as is the freedom of religion. These twin liberties are two reasons why so many people have risked – and continue to risk – life and limb to make it to our shores. Not surprisingly, these freedoms often come into conflict with each another in the public arena. No one likes to see their deeply held beliefs insulted, degraded, or mocked, yet the right of free speech includes the right to criticize our neighbor's religious views. The moment we deny our citizens the right to criticize other people or their ideas, we will no longer be truly free.
By all indications however, our government appears to have developed a double standard when it comes to criticism of certain religious traditions – or, I should say, one such tradition. While other religious groups in America (Christians in particular) are expected to tolerate all manner of offenses, debasements, and outright attacks against their beliefs in the name of the First Amendment, Muslim Americans benefit from a government that goes out of it's way to avoid offending their religious sensibilities. In a country that has gone to sometimes extreme lengths to preserve the hallowed 'separation' between Church and State, the question is, why?
Many Christians in America today feel that their religion is under attack, and with good reason. An attitude of skepticism and downright hostility towards Christianity has taken hold in many corners of society, resulting in actions that test the charity and tolerance of even the most pious believers. Revered Christian icons have been immersed in urine and smeared in elephant dung in the name of 'art' (with the patronage of the federal government, no less), Jesus Christ and his followers have been portrayed as gay lovers in an off-Broadway play, personal faith testimonies and religious groups have been censored on high school and college campuses across America, a veterans' cross memorial in the California desert has been the target of an ACLU lawsuit, and Bibles have been burned by the U.S. government in the name of 'diplomacy.'
Despite the role that Christianity has played in the character and formation of the United States – despite it's status as the majority religion in America and one of the three great world religions – I don't recall a single instance where a President and a Secretary of State and a general intervened on behalf of Christians with a plea for respect and restraint directed toward provocateurs who denigrated their faith. I certainly cannot recall any instance in which an anti-Christian provocateur has been told by such luminaries that his actions against Christianity might prompt Christians around the world to commit violent acts of retaliation. An offense against Islam, however, is a different story. When rumors began to circulate that a fundamentalist Christian pastor named Terry Jones was planning to burn the Koran on September 11th as a sign of American opposition to Islamic terrorism, darn near the entire government – from the military to the State Department to the FBI, even the President himself – weighed in.
So we're back to the original question: Why the double standard? Why do Muslims warrant special treatment in a country that prides itself on its ability to distinguish between the secular and the sacred? Dr. Mark Mitchell, author and Professor of Political Theory at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia, offers an interesting perspective. Turns out, while the American constitution may view all religions as equally valid in the eyes of the law, not all religious traditions comport equally well with the principles embodied in the American constitution:
'Let's reverse the situation for a minute. Imagine that an obscure Imam in Kuwait decided to burn a pile of Bibles to commemorate the end of Ramadan. . . . The American response to a Muslim cleric burning Bibles might indicate an important fact about Christianity and about the American Constitutional order. Christ taught his disciples to turn the other cheek. To love their enemies. To pray for those who persecute them. Christianity at its best is a religion dedicated to loving God and loving one's neighbor. Thus, the proper Christian response to the Bible burning Imam is to pray for him. To pray as Christ did while on the cross: 'Father forgive them.' Peaceful persuasion rooted in prayer and characterized by love is the Christian ideal. Protests and violence (or the threat thereof) is not in keeping with the Christian faith; although, plenty of Christians have veered down that road to the detriment of the very faith they claim.
The American Constitutional order is one historically rooted in the Christian faith but separated from any established national church. In that sense, the American Constitutional order is secular in form but an outgrowth of a culture permeated by assumptions about human nature and moral truths born of Christianity. As a result, we enjoy a political sphere that can be influenced by the religious sphere while at the same time citizens are free to worship as they please and the state has no say over the content of religious beliefs. . . . There are no Muslim states that effect the separation of the state and the church save Turkey, an experiment imposed in the early twentieth-century by a strong ruler who was attempting to help Turkey become a modern nation. While Turkey certainly provides some evidence in support of the hope that Muslim nations can establish political institutions that are formally separated from the dominant religious institutions, the jury is still out and recent trends suggest a resurgence of Islamicist control. So the question remains: can Islam exist as a majority religion in a nation committed to religious pluralism and freedom of expression? This is one of the great questions of our time.'
Dr. Mitchell poses an excellent question, one that our leaders in Washington would do well to ponder. Should the American government abandon its ideals and compromise on its constitutional principles to appease a segment of the population who, because of their religion, refuses to integrate those principles into their way of life? Should we allow fear of violent retaliation abroad to prevent us from defending the exercise of constitutional liberties of American citizens here at home, however offensive and misguided their actions may be?
The President, for one, had no difficulty in standing up for the First Amendment rights of those wishing to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero, despite the highly offensive nature of the project. He unequivocally stated his view that Muslim Americans have a right to build a mosque wherever they wish to build one, be it Ground Zero or any other location allowed by law. The inappropriateness of the project's proposed location didn't merit a word from the Commander in Chief. The insult to the memory of those that died on that spot nine years ago at the hands of fanatical Muslim terrorists didn't warrant a call for compassionate restraint.
The nuanced distinction between 'right' and 'rectitude' that the President should have acknowledged with regard to the Ground Zero mosque proposal was instead employed against the pastor in Florida, whose desire to burn the Koran was offensive and misguided – yet nonetheless protected by the Constitution. In this instance the President's focus shifted from the legality of the action to the appropriateness of the action. A call for restraint was issued, pressure was applied, and the pastor backed down.
At no time during the Koran-burning controversy did the President see fit to address the troubling fact that Muslims often respond violently whenever their religious sensibilities are offended. Yet the assassination of Theodore Van Gogh, the threats against Salman Rushdie and the violent response to the Danish cartoons that mocked Muhammed were not that long ago. Alas, the President and his emissaries seem resigned to the fact that Muslims often appear incapable of tolerating criticism of their faith with grace and civility. But is a policy of appeasement toward Islam a proper course under the Constitution? Does allowing Islam to occupy a 'criticism free zone' comport with American constitutional ideals? Or will such a policy increase the likelihood that the producers of 'Muslims Behaving Badly' will be all the more inclined to trot out their act the next time any critic of Islam deigns to speak unkindly of the Islamic faith?
The current clash of civilizations is not going away. Many European countries are struggling to deal with the fallout from tensions between their secular societies and Muslim immigrants. The American people need to know that they have a president who is prepared to protect and defend the liberties of all Americans, regardless of religion. When it comes to the Constitution, there is no room for double standards.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
The freedom to speak freely is a hallmark of the American constitutional tradition, as is the freedom of religion. These twin liberties are two reasons why so many people have risked – and continue to risk – life and limb to make it to our shores. Not surprisingly, these freedoms often come into conflict with each another in the public arena. No one likes to see their deeply held beliefs insulted, degraded, or mocked, yet the right of free speech includes the right to criticize our neighbor's religious views. The moment we deny our citizens the right to criticize other people or their ideas, we will no longer be truly free.
By all indications however, our government appears to have developed a double standard when it comes to criticism of certain religious traditions – or, I should say, one such tradition. While other religious groups in America (Christians in particular) are expected to tolerate all manner of offenses, debasements, and outright attacks against their beliefs in the name of the First Amendment, Muslim Americans benefit from a government that goes out of it's way to avoid offending their religious sensibilities. In a country that has gone to sometimes extreme lengths to preserve the hallowed 'separation' between Church and State, the question is, why?
Many Christians in America today feel that their religion is under attack, and with good reason. An attitude of skepticism and downright hostility towards Christianity has taken hold in many corners of society, resulting in actions that test the charity and tolerance of even the most pious believers. Revered Christian icons have been immersed in urine and smeared in elephant dung in the name of 'art' (with the patronage of the federal government, no less), Jesus Christ and his followers have been portrayed as gay lovers in an off-Broadway play, personal faith testimonies and religious groups have been censored on high school and college campuses across America, a veterans' cross memorial in the California desert has been the target of an ACLU lawsuit, and Bibles have been burned by the U.S. government in the name of 'diplomacy.'
Despite the role that Christianity has played in the character and formation of the United States – despite it's status as the majority religion in America and one of the three great world religions – I don't recall a single instance where a President and a Secretary of State and a general intervened on behalf of Christians with a plea for respect and restraint directed toward provocateurs who denigrated their faith. I certainly cannot recall any instance in which an anti-Christian provocateur has been told by such luminaries that his actions against Christianity might prompt Christians around the world to commit violent acts of retaliation. An offense against Islam, however, is a different story. When rumors began to circulate that a fundamentalist Christian pastor named Terry Jones was planning to burn the Koran on September 11th as a sign of American opposition to Islamic terrorism, darn near the entire government – from the military to the State Department to the FBI, even the President himself – weighed in.
So we're back to the original question: Why the double standard? Why do Muslims warrant special treatment in a country that prides itself on its ability to distinguish between the secular and the sacred? Dr. Mark Mitchell, author and Professor of Political Theory at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia, offers an interesting perspective. Turns out, while the American constitution may view all religions as equally valid in the eyes of the law, not all religious traditions comport equally well with the principles embodied in the American constitution:
'Let's reverse the situation for a minute. Imagine that an obscure Imam in Kuwait decided to burn a pile of Bibles to commemorate the end of Ramadan. . . . The American response to a Muslim cleric burning Bibles might indicate an important fact about Christianity and about the American Constitutional order. Christ taught his disciples to turn the other cheek. To love their enemies. To pray for those who persecute them. Christianity at its best is a religion dedicated to loving God and loving one's neighbor. Thus, the proper Christian response to the Bible burning Imam is to pray for him. To pray as Christ did while on the cross: 'Father forgive them.' Peaceful persuasion rooted in prayer and characterized by love is the Christian ideal. Protests and violence (or the threat thereof) is not in keeping with the Christian faith; although, plenty of Christians have veered down that road to the detriment of the very faith they claim.
The American Constitutional order is one historically rooted in the Christian faith but separated from any established national church. In that sense, the American Constitutional order is secular in form but an outgrowth of a culture permeated by assumptions about human nature and moral truths born of Christianity. As a result, we enjoy a political sphere that can be influenced by the religious sphere while at the same time citizens are free to worship as they please and the state has no say over the content of religious beliefs. . . . There are no Muslim states that effect the separation of the state and the church save Turkey, an experiment imposed in the early twentieth-century by a strong ruler who was attempting to help Turkey become a modern nation. While Turkey certainly provides some evidence in support of the hope that Muslim nations can establish political institutions that are formally separated from the dominant religious institutions, the jury is still out and recent trends suggest a resurgence of Islamicist control. So the question remains: can Islam exist as a majority religion in a nation committed to religious pluralism and freedom of expression? This is one of the great questions of our time.'
Dr. Mitchell poses an excellent question, one that our leaders in Washington would do well to ponder. Should the American government abandon its ideals and compromise on its constitutional principles to appease a segment of the population who, because of their religion, refuses to integrate those principles into their way of life? Should we allow fear of violent retaliation abroad to prevent us from defending the exercise of constitutional liberties of American citizens here at home, however offensive and misguided their actions may be?
The President, for one, had no difficulty in standing up for the First Amendment rights of those wishing to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero, despite the highly offensive nature of the project. He unequivocally stated his view that Muslim Americans have a right to build a mosque wherever they wish to build one, be it Ground Zero or any other location allowed by law. The inappropriateness of the project's proposed location didn't merit a word from the Commander in Chief. The insult to the memory of those that died on that spot nine years ago at the hands of fanatical Muslim terrorists didn't warrant a call for compassionate restraint.
The nuanced distinction between 'right' and 'rectitude' that the President should have acknowledged with regard to the Ground Zero mosque proposal was instead employed against the pastor in Florida, whose desire to burn the Koran was offensive and misguided – yet nonetheless protected by the Constitution. In this instance the President's focus shifted from the legality of the action to the appropriateness of the action. A call for restraint was issued, pressure was applied, and the pastor backed down.
At no time during the Koran-burning controversy did the President see fit to address the troubling fact that Muslims often respond violently whenever their religious sensibilities are offended. Yet the assassination of Theodore Van Gogh, the threats against Salman Rushdie and the violent response to the Danish cartoons that mocked Muhammed were not that long ago. Alas, the President and his emissaries seem resigned to the fact that Muslims often appear incapable of tolerating criticism of their faith with grace and civility. But is a policy of appeasement toward Islam a proper course under the Constitution? Does allowing Islam to occupy a 'criticism free zone' comport with American constitutional ideals? Or will such a policy increase the likelihood that the producers of 'Muslims Behaving Badly' will be all the more inclined to trot out their act the next time any critic of Islam deigns to speak unkindly of the Islamic faith?
The current clash of civilizations is not going away. Many European countries are struggling to deal with the fallout from tensions between their secular societies and Muslim immigrants. The American people need to know that they have a president who is prepared to protect and defend the liberties of all Americans, regardless of religion. When it comes to the Constitution, there is no room for double standards.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Mrs. B.O.: Hell Is Your Just Reward for Betrothing the Devil! by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010
Mrs. B.O.: Hell Is Your Just Reward for Betrothing the Devil! by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010:
Poor Michelle Obama.
Despite having 30 or more servants satisfying her every temporal need and wish 24/7 in the White House;
Despite the fame and fortune that accrues to one fortunate enough to be the FLOTUS;
Despite lavish vacations in Europe that cost taxpayers close to one half million dollars;
Despite the full force and service of the Secret Service to protect she and her daughters;
Despite living a life of extravagant leisure and luxury while seven percent of the nation languishes in poverty;
Despite her pampered and protected life, Michelle Obama regards her situation as FLOTUS as “hell,” as least according to a book which quotes acquaintances of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, France’s first lady.
Sorry, Michelle, but HELL is being unemployed, a situation exacerbated by your husband's anti-business zeal and lack of understanding;
HELL is the huge tax increases about to devastate all taxpayers because of your husband's insolence and arrogance;
HELL is being a senior citizen in frail health during the era of rationed care and death panels, both products of your husband's arrogant destruction of the finest health care system in the world;
HELL is having friend or family in Iraq where American men and women are still engaged in combat, a fact not appreciated by your husband;
HELL is being a parent living in the knowledge that your husband's reckless and irresponsible spending has bloated the federal deficit completely out of control;
HELL is living in Arizona where illegal aliens continue to invade America and where your husband refuses to secure the borders and enforce the laws, and even sues Arizona for defending American citizens from foreign invaders.
Above all else, HELL is living with the devil which you, Michelle, have as your just reward for betrothing the Evil One!
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Poor Michelle Obama.
Despite having 30 or more servants satisfying her every temporal need and wish 24/7 in the White House;
Despite the fame and fortune that accrues to one fortunate enough to be the FLOTUS;
Despite lavish vacations in Europe that cost taxpayers close to one half million dollars;
Despite the full force and service of the Secret Service to protect she and her daughters;
Despite living a life of extravagant leisure and luxury while seven percent of the nation languishes in poverty;
Despite her pampered and protected life, Michelle Obama regards her situation as FLOTUS as “hell,” as least according to a book which quotes acquaintances of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, France’s first lady.
Sorry, Michelle, but HELL is being unemployed, a situation exacerbated by your husband's anti-business zeal and lack of understanding;
HELL is the huge tax increases about to devastate all taxpayers because of your husband's insolence and arrogance;
HELL is being a senior citizen in frail health during the era of rationed care and death panels, both products of your husband's arrogant destruction of the finest health care system in the world;
HELL is having friend or family in Iraq where American men and women are still engaged in combat, a fact not appreciated by your husband;
HELL is being a parent living in the knowledge that your husband's reckless and irresponsible spending has bloated the federal deficit completely out of control;
HELL is living in Arizona where illegal aliens continue to invade America and where your husband refuses to secure the borders and enforce the laws, and even sues Arizona for defending American citizens from foreign invaders.
Above all else, HELL is living with the devil which you, Michelle, have as your just reward for betrothing the Evil One!
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Burn a Koran bad, burn a Holy Bible okay? - National Homeland Security | Examiner.com
Burn a Koran bad, burn a Holy Bible okay? - National Homeland Security | Examiner.com: "
Panic Surrounding Rogue Pastor's Plan To Burn A Koran On The Anniversary Of 9/11
Political Correctness Run Amok As The President On Down Beg The Pastor From Florida Who Has About 50 Followers To Reconsider His Koran Burning Plan
The fear in the west concerning the potential backlash from the proposed burning of the Koran is most probably warranted. One need only look at the worldwide reaction from Muslims when a Dutch cartoonist published something not to their liking. Riots and death threats abounded.
The reactions of the west and of the Muslim world will typically vary in this regard. American Flag burning and rioting is more of the norm in some of these Muslim societies where in the west reactions to distasteful situations will be found most likely in editorials and on op-ed pages.
Christian missionaries may be kidnapped or killed based on the accusation of the 'crime' of spreading Christianity, where in the United States and elsewhere there truly exists freedom of religion.
How many churches or synagogues have been built in the Muslim world versus the number of mosques that have been built in the United States? Why worldwide outrage over the asking of the location of the Cordoba House to be moved several blocks away from Ground Zero?
Would the Japanese have been welcomed to build a Temple mere feet from Pearl Harbor in 1950?
How Some Parts Of The Muslim World Have Treated The Holy Bible In The Past, If The Argument Surrounds The Treatment of Holy Books?
I reprint here snippets from four stories that show examples of disregard for the Bible, courtesy of Plancks Constant.
1) 25 May 2005, Saudi Arabia Desecrates Hundreds of Bibles Annually
Washington DC - The Saudi government burns and desecrates hundreds of bibles its security forces confiscate after raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately or at border crossings.
As a matter of official policy, the government either incinerates or dumps bibles, crosses and other Christian paraphernalia.
Hundreds of Christian worshipers are arrested every year by Saudi police in raids on their private gatherings. Bibles, crosses and printed materials are confiscated and later burnt or dumped into trash. Bibles and other Christian paraphernalia found with travelers into the country are confiscated and destroyed...
2) 10 Dec 2006, Muslim Students Urinate, Spit On Then Burn Bible
TWO Muslim students have been expelled from an Islamic school in Melbourne for urinating and spitting on a Bible and setting it on fire.
The explosive incident has forced the East Preston Islamic College to call in a senior imam to tell its 650 Muslim students that the Bible and Christianity must be respected.
Anxious teachers at the school have also petitioned principal Shaheem Doutie, expressing 'grave concern' about an 'inculcation of hatred and radical attitudes towards non-Muslims' at the school, including towards non-Muslim teachers...
3) 18 Jun 2007, Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses
Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned...
4) 19 Dec 2008, Muslims burn Bible in Pakistan
Pervez Masih tells AsiaNews that on that day, he and others were whitewashing and decorating the little church for Christmas. They stopped at noon for lunch, leaving the church open. When they returned, they found the bible and other sacred texts reduced to ashes, and a handwritten letter telling them to convert to Islam if they wanted to 'live in peace' and avoid hell. In Pakistan, there is significant controversy over the law on blasphemy, condemning even to death those who offend the sacred book of Islam, the Qur'an. But nothing is done against blasphemous acts toward the books of other religions...
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Panic Surrounding Rogue Pastor's Plan To Burn A Koran On The Anniversary Of 9/11
Political Correctness Run Amok As The President On Down Beg The Pastor From Florida Who Has About 50 Followers To Reconsider His Koran Burning Plan
The fear in the west concerning the potential backlash from the proposed burning of the Koran is most probably warranted. One need only look at the worldwide reaction from Muslims when a Dutch cartoonist published something not to their liking. Riots and death threats abounded.
The reactions of the west and of the Muslim world will typically vary in this regard. American Flag burning and rioting is more of the norm in some of these Muslim societies where in the west reactions to distasteful situations will be found most likely in editorials and on op-ed pages.
Christian missionaries may be kidnapped or killed based on the accusation of the 'crime' of spreading Christianity, where in the United States and elsewhere there truly exists freedom of religion.
How many churches or synagogues have been built in the Muslim world versus the number of mosques that have been built in the United States? Why worldwide outrage over the asking of the location of the Cordoba House to be moved several blocks away from Ground Zero?
Would the Japanese have been welcomed to build a Temple mere feet from Pearl Harbor in 1950?
How Some Parts Of The Muslim World Have Treated The Holy Bible In The Past, If The Argument Surrounds The Treatment of Holy Books?
I reprint here snippets from four stories that show examples of disregard for the Bible, courtesy of Plancks Constant.
1) 25 May 2005, Saudi Arabia Desecrates Hundreds of Bibles Annually
Washington DC - The Saudi government burns and desecrates hundreds of bibles its security forces confiscate after raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately or at border crossings.
As a matter of official policy, the government either incinerates or dumps bibles, crosses and other Christian paraphernalia.
Hundreds of Christian worshipers are arrested every year by Saudi police in raids on their private gatherings. Bibles, crosses and printed materials are confiscated and later burnt or dumped into trash. Bibles and other Christian paraphernalia found with travelers into the country are confiscated and destroyed...
2) 10 Dec 2006, Muslim Students Urinate, Spit On Then Burn Bible
TWO Muslim students have been expelled from an Islamic school in Melbourne for urinating and spitting on a Bible and setting it on fire.
The explosive incident has forced the East Preston Islamic College to call in a senior imam to tell its 650 Muslim students that the Bible and Christianity must be respected.
Anxious teachers at the school have also petitioned principal Shaheem Doutie, expressing 'grave concern' about an 'inculcation of hatred and radical attitudes towards non-Muslims' at the school, including towards non-Muslim teachers...
3) 18 Jun 2007, Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses
Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned...
4) 19 Dec 2008, Muslims burn Bible in Pakistan
Pervez Masih tells AsiaNews that on that day, he and others were whitewashing and decorating the little church for Christmas. They stopped at noon for lunch, leaving the church open. When they returned, they found the bible and other sacred texts reduced to ashes, and a handwritten letter telling them to convert to Islam if they wanted to 'live in peace' and avoid hell. In Pakistan, there is significant controversy over the law on blasphemy, condemning even to death those who offend the sacred book of Islam, the Qur'an. But nothing is done against blasphemous acts toward the books of other religions...
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Monday, September 6, 2010
Obama Braggadocio about Iraq: Another Failure! by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010
Obama Braggadocio about Iraq: Another Failure! by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010: "He began his disastrous term as U.S. president by ordering the closure of GITMO. Thankfully, that order has never been carried out.
He then forced passage of a trillion-dollar stimulus bill which he promised would create and or save 3.5 to 4 million jobs, keep unemployment under 8 percent and save the American economy.
Those promises never materialized, unemployment is still a disgrace, and the economy is in the grips of an Obama-double-dip recession.
He escalated the war in Afghanistan, the so-called “right” war, but has failed to provide even a semblance of leadership for winning there. American mothers and fathers with sons and daughters in Afghanistan need to know that their offspring, although in the military by choice, are being commanded by a rank, anti-American amateur whose sole objective is to get the troops home in time to shore up his ratings in time for the 2012 presidential elections.
Should your son or daughter suffer injury or worse, the man running the show is all about winning—reelection, that is.
He has declared all-out war on American business, the engine of prosperity and the only entity that creates real jobs. When that and the ill-conceived stimulus notion devastate the economy, he seeks even more billions in economic aid.
On and on it goes, this president has failed the American people early every time he has become involved.
Obama’s latest failure was his disgusting self-congratulation about ending the war in Iraq.
As reported at Myway.com, in part:
“BAGHDAD (AP) - Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq's ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens.
“It was the first exchange of fire involving U.S. troops in Baghdad since the Aug. 31 deadline for formally ending the combat mission, and it showed that American troops remaining in the country are still being drawn into the fighting.
“The attack also made plain the kind of lapses in security that have left Iraqis wary of the U.S. drawdown and distrustful of the ability of Iraqi forces now taking up ultimate responsibility for protecting the country.
“Sunday's hour-long assault was the second in as many weeks on the facility, the headquarters for the Iraqi Army's 11th Division, pointing to the failure of Iraqi forces to plug even the most obvious holes in their security.”
Combat over, Mr. President?
Is there nothing this man can do right?
How about a “resignation” speech, Mr. President?
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
He then forced passage of a trillion-dollar stimulus bill which he promised would create and or save 3.5 to 4 million jobs, keep unemployment under 8 percent and save the American economy.
Those promises never materialized, unemployment is still a disgrace, and the economy is in the grips of an Obama-double-dip recession.
He escalated the war in Afghanistan, the so-called “right” war, but has failed to provide even a semblance of leadership for winning there. American mothers and fathers with sons and daughters in Afghanistan need to know that their offspring, although in the military by choice, are being commanded by a rank, anti-American amateur whose sole objective is to get the troops home in time to shore up his ratings in time for the 2012 presidential elections.
Should your son or daughter suffer injury or worse, the man running the show is all about winning—reelection, that is.
He has declared all-out war on American business, the engine of prosperity and the only entity that creates real jobs. When that and the ill-conceived stimulus notion devastate the economy, he seeks even more billions in economic aid.
On and on it goes, this president has failed the American people early every time he has become involved.
Obama’s latest failure was his disgusting self-congratulation about ending the war in Iraq.
As reported at Myway.com, in part:
“BAGHDAD (AP) - Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq's ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens.
“It was the first exchange of fire involving U.S. troops in Baghdad since the Aug. 31 deadline for formally ending the combat mission, and it showed that American troops remaining in the country are still being drawn into the fighting.
“The attack also made plain the kind of lapses in security that have left Iraqis wary of the U.S. drawdown and distrustful of the ability of Iraqi forces now taking up ultimate responsibility for protecting the country.
“Sunday's hour-long assault was the second in as many weeks on the facility, the headquarters for the Iraqi Army's 11th Division, pointing to the failure of Iraqi forces to plug even the most obvious holes in their security.”
Combat over, Mr. President?
Is there nothing this man can do right?
How about a “resignation” speech, Mr. President?
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Friday, September 3, 2010
Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq
Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq: "WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a 'problem' that had barely reduced violence.
'The surge is not working,' Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an 'improved security situation' paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s' 'hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.'
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is 'not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.'
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. 'The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,' said McCain, adding that Obama 'refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.'
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a 'problem' that had barely reduced violence.
'The surge is not working,' Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an 'improved security situation' paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s' 'hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.'
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is 'not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.'
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. 'The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,' said McCain, adding that Obama 'refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.'
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Obama Is Not A Muslim - HUMAN EVENTS
Obama Is Not A Muslim - HUMAN EVENTS:
The nonsense about President Obama being a Muslim has got to stop. I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist.
Leave aside Obama's fanatical opposition to allowing Illinois hospitals to save the lives of babies with God-given souls inadvertently born alive during abortions. Also leave aside the fact that neither of his parents were Christians. And leave aside his current crop of 'spiritual advisers,' which is a collection of Mother Earth worshippers, polytheists and other nonbelievers.
Now rest from all that 'leaving aside.'
The only evidence for Obama's Christianity is that he faithfully attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.
Yes, the guy bellowing 'God damn America!' is the one vouching for Obama's Christianity. That's like saying you got sober with the help of your A.A. sponsor Lindsay Lohan.
It is a fact that any non-retarded person (thank you, Rahm Emanuel!) sitting in the Rev. Wright's church for 20 minutes, much less 20 years, does not believe in God. Even stepping inside Wright's church for a moment to get out of the rain is borderline racist.
Going to Trinity United Church of Christ is even stronger evidence of nonbelief than Bill Clinton returning from Sunday services to receive oral sex from Monica Lewinsky. This isn't mere sin -- everybody sins (though some with more frequency and less remorse than others).
Attending Wright's church is the conscious, calculated decision to immerse yourself in hate-filled demagoguery and call it 'Christianity.'
But according to North Korean TV's Chris Matthews, it is a provable, scientific fact that Obama is a Christian because he says so. 'Everybody watching right now,' Matthews said to his several viewers last week, 'gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. ... We accept that in America. It's called freedom of religion and respect for religion.'
That would make professions of religious belief, unlike all other self-professions, unchallengeable. Liberals say conservatives don't believe in civil rights. I say liberals are godless traitors. Why is one statement debatable and the other not?
Doesn't anyone question the Christianity of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker? How about the Satanists claiming to be Christians who stand outside soldiers' funerals with signs that say 'God Hates Fags'?
And, for the record, the allegedly inviolate assertion of one's own religious belief wasn't so inviolate when it came to Ronald Reagan.
Tip O'Neill used to question President Reagan's Christianity all the time, taunting the president for not attending church regularly. Matthews might remember that: He was working for O'Neill at the time.
In fact, parading to church in front of the TV cameras carrying a 10-pound Bible -- like a certain serial adulterer, impeached president I could name -- is strongly discouraged by the creator of the universe. ('Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.' Matthew 6.1)
Some conservatives have cited Obama's near complete refusal to go to church to suggest he's not the 'devout Christian' who 'prays every day' as the White House claims.
But that's not your proof, Christians. To the contrary, it's Obama's church attendance -- back in Chicago -- that proves he's an atheist.
This was inadvertently admitted by Obama's leading butt-boy, Richard Wolffe, on North Korean TV Monday night. Wolffe acknowledged that Wright's liberation theology was not Christianity, but then forcefully distinguished Obama from the Rev. Wright –- i.e., Obama's sole character witness for his alleged Christianity.
Of Glenn Beck's denunciation of liberation theology as a false religion, Wolffe said: 'Is he debating Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama? They're two different people. If he wants to debate liberation theology with Wright, he's got something to talk about. But liberation theology hasn't been anything espoused by this president.'
But it was espoused in the only church Obama ever attended regularly -- for 20 years, no less -- was married in and had his daughters baptized in. The title of Obama's autobiography came from the title of one of Wright's sermons and snippets from Wright's sermons have appeared in Obama's work.
So the sole evidence of Obama's supposed Christianity is his longtime pastor, who everyone admits is a racist nut.
No sentient human is required to take Obama's profession of Christianity any more seriously than if it were coming from a 1980s blow-dried, money-grubbing televangelist with a mistress on the side.
All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.
Not being acquainted with any actual Christians, they aren't particularly good bluffers. That's why Democrats babble incoherently whenever the subject of religion comes up. Liberals acting devout always looks like the love scenes between Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis in 'Top Gun': awkward and unconvincing.
Former divinity student Al Gore famously botched a biblical verse, switching God's instruction that we put heaven before earthly things ('For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,' Matthew 6:21) by saying we should make the Earth our treasure. (In the druidical religion of liberalism, not separating your recyclables is a sin, but abortion is just a medical procedure.)
Howard Dean told a reporter his favorite book of the New Testament was Job.
It took the Democrats' born-again Christian Jimmy Carter three decades to announce, in 2005, that he didn't think Jesus would approve of abortion ('unless the mother's life or health was in danger or perhaps the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest,' etc. etc.).
There's only one true Christian liberal in the country and that's Mike Huckabee.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
The nonsense about President Obama being a Muslim has got to stop. I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist.
Leave aside Obama's fanatical opposition to allowing Illinois hospitals to save the lives of babies with God-given souls inadvertently born alive during abortions. Also leave aside the fact that neither of his parents were Christians. And leave aside his current crop of 'spiritual advisers,' which is a collection of Mother Earth worshippers, polytheists and other nonbelievers.
Now rest from all that 'leaving aside.'
The only evidence for Obama's Christianity is that he faithfully attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.
Yes, the guy bellowing 'God damn America!' is the one vouching for Obama's Christianity. That's like saying you got sober with the help of your A.A. sponsor Lindsay Lohan.
It is a fact that any non-retarded person (thank you, Rahm Emanuel!) sitting in the Rev. Wright's church for 20 minutes, much less 20 years, does not believe in God. Even stepping inside Wright's church for a moment to get out of the rain is borderline racist.
Going to Trinity United Church of Christ is even stronger evidence of nonbelief than Bill Clinton returning from Sunday services to receive oral sex from Monica Lewinsky. This isn't mere sin -- everybody sins (though some with more frequency and less remorse than others).
Attending Wright's church is the conscious, calculated decision to immerse yourself in hate-filled demagoguery and call it 'Christianity.'
But according to North Korean TV's Chris Matthews, it is a provable, scientific fact that Obama is a Christian because he says so. 'Everybody watching right now,' Matthews said to his several viewers last week, 'gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. ... We accept that in America. It's called freedom of religion and respect for religion.'
That would make professions of religious belief, unlike all other self-professions, unchallengeable. Liberals say conservatives don't believe in civil rights. I say liberals are godless traitors. Why is one statement debatable and the other not?
Doesn't anyone question the Christianity of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker? How about the Satanists claiming to be Christians who stand outside soldiers' funerals with signs that say 'God Hates Fags'?
And, for the record, the allegedly inviolate assertion of one's own religious belief wasn't so inviolate when it came to Ronald Reagan.
Tip O'Neill used to question President Reagan's Christianity all the time, taunting the president for not attending church regularly. Matthews might remember that: He was working for O'Neill at the time.
In fact, parading to church in front of the TV cameras carrying a 10-pound Bible -- like a certain serial adulterer, impeached president I could name -- is strongly discouraged by the creator of the universe. ('Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.' Matthew 6.1)
Some conservatives have cited Obama's near complete refusal to go to church to suggest he's not the 'devout Christian' who 'prays every day' as the White House claims.
But that's not your proof, Christians. To the contrary, it's Obama's church attendance -- back in Chicago -- that proves he's an atheist.
This was inadvertently admitted by Obama's leading butt-boy, Richard Wolffe, on North Korean TV Monday night. Wolffe acknowledged that Wright's liberation theology was not Christianity, but then forcefully distinguished Obama from the Rev. Wright –- i.e., Obama's sole character witness for his alleged Christianity.
Of Glenn Beck's denunciation of liberation theology as a false religion, Wolffe said: 'Is he debating Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama? They're two different people. If he wants to debate liberation theology with Wright, he's got something to talk about. But liberation theology hasn't been anything espoused by this president.'
But it was espoused in the only church Obama ever attended regularly -- for 20 years, no less -- was married in and had his daughters baptized in. The title of Obama's autobiography came from the title of one of Wright's sermons and snippets from Wright's sermons have appeared in Obama's work.
So the sole evidence of Obama's supposed Christianity is his longtime pastor, who everyone admits is a racist nut.
No sentient human is required to take Obama's profession of Christianity any more seriously than if it were coming from a 1980s blow-dried, money-grubbing televangelist with a mistress on the side.
All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.
Not being acquainted with any actual Christians, they aren't particularly good bluffers. That's why Democrats babble incoherently whenever the subject of religion comes up. Liberals acting devout always looks like the love scenes between Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis in 'Top Gun': awkward and unconvincing.
Former divinity student Al Gore famously botched a biblical verse, switching God's instruction that we put heaven before earthly things ('For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,' Matthew 6:21) by saying we should make the Earth our treasure. (In the druidical religion of liberalism, not separating your recyclables is a sin, but abortion is just a medical procedure.)
Howard Dean told a reporter his favorite book of the New Testament was Job.
It took the Democrats' born-again Christian Jimmy Carter three decades to announce, in 2005, that he didn't think Jesus would approve of abortion ('unless the mother's life or health was in danger or perhaps the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest,' etc. etc.).
There's only one true Christian liberal in the country and that's Mike Huckabee.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Monday, August 30, 2010
Ground Zero Imam a Taxpayer-Subsidized Slumlord - HUMAN EVENTS
Ground Zero Imam a Taxpayer-Subsidized Slumlord - HUMAN EVENTS: "The elitist, media-generated grand illusion of the Ground Zero mosque imam has begun to collapse under scrutiny.
New reports from The Record out of Hackensack, N.J., reveal Feisal Abdul Rauf, the would-be Ground Zero imam, owns taxpayer-subsidized apartment buildings in Hudson County where the tenants have made municipal health complaints including rat, roach and bedbug infestations, seeping toilets, leaks, urine-soaked hallways, no heat and no hot water.
Despite millions of dollars in government subsidies, Rauf has trouble maintaining several small apartment buildings in North Bergen, Palisades Park and Union City.
From the NewJersey.com report:
Page after page of municipal health records examined by The Record show repeated complaints ranging from failure to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water.
Cynthia Balko, 48, of Union City -- a longtime tenant of Rauf’s -- said she’s had to live with rats, leaks and no heat: “I don’t have anything nice to say about the man.”
Despite having received over $2 million in public funding for renovations, Rauf’s tenants were forced to file municipal health complaints to seek relief. One such single mother living in a Rauf-owned apartment in Union City said Rauf has not answered complaints.
From an additional story in The Record:
To understand her perspective, you need to go to a forlorn corner on the Jersey side -- to 22nd Street in Union City and a four-story apartment building owned by Rauf. The locks on a front door are broken and the hallway leading to [Melba] Lopez’s two-bedroom apartment smells of urine.
Looking east on 22nd Street -- back across the Hudson -- the Empire State building pokes the sky. On that side of the river, New York’s mayor speaks of Rauf as a symbol of religious freedom and last week invited the Imam’s wife, Daisy Khan, to dinner at Gracie Mansion to honor the Islamic celebration of Ramadan.
But in Union City, Lopez, a single mother, has another way of describing the man who has time to promote the so-called Ground Zero mosque, but does not seem to have time to answer her complaints about leaks in her toilet.
Lopez said in the report she has never met the would-be Ground Zero mosque imam but she says she has met Rauf’s wife Khan.
Lopez said she remembers Khan telling her that she and her husband did not have enough money to fix her leak and other problems in the building. What Lopez did not know was that at the same time, Rauf and Khan were trying to raise money for their mosque project on the other side of the Hudson.
According to the new reports, Rauf has a long history of taxpayer subsidies and grants for slum properties. There’s even a new revelation of a lawsuit settled in June over what the report terms a suit alleging fraud.
From the link:
[T]he suit alleged Rauf and Khan transferred ownership to another firm they owned and then obtained a $650,000 mortgage on the same building from a bank. After the building was damaged by fire in February 2008, Rauf and Khan stopped making mortgage payments to Cockinos, a former key executive at Daibes’ Mariner’s Bank. When Cockinos tried to foreclose, he discovered Rauf and Khan had switched ownership and filed suit alleging “fraud.”
The case was settled shortly before a June 28 trial, with Rauf and Khan agreeing to pay off the mortgage to Cockinos within the next few years, said the couple’s lawyer, Richard Rosa of Hackensack.
There is much more on Rauf and Khan’s current financial woes at the link.
The New York Post reported the site's developers owe hundreds of thousands in back taxes:
The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.
Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.
El-Gamal's company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.
Sounds like a good time to raise $100 million for a mosque.
Reuters is reporting New York is considering granting the group a reported $70 million in public funding.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
New reports from The Record out of Hackensack, N.J., reveal Feisal Abdul Rauf, the would-be Ground Zero imam, owns taxpayer-subsidized apartment buildings in Hudson County where the tenants have made municipal health complaints including rat, roach and bedbug infestations, seeping toilets, leaks, urine-soaked hallways, no heat and no hot water.
Despite millions of dollars in government subsidies, Rauf has trouble maintaining several small apartment buildings in North Bergen, Palisades Park and Union City.
From the NewJersey.com report:
Page after page of municipal health records examined by The Record show repeated complaints ranging from failure to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water.
Cynthia Balko, 48, of Union City -- a longtime tenant of Rauf’s -- said she’s had to live with rats, leaks and no heat: “I don’t have anything nice to say about the man.”
Despite having received over $2 million in public funding for renovations, Rauf’s tenants were forced to file municipal health complaints to seek relief. One such single mother living in a Rauf-owned apartment in Union City said Rauf has not answered complaints.
From an additional story in The Record:
To understand her perspective, you need to go to a forlorn corner on the Jersey side -- to 22nd Street in Union City and a four-story apartment building owned by Rauf. The locks on a front door are broken and the hallway leading to [Melba] Lopez’s two-bedroom apartment smells of urine.
Looking east on 22nd Street -- back across the Hudson -- the Empire State building pokes the sky. On that side of the river, New York’s mayor speaks of Rauf as a symbol of religious freedom and last week invited the Imam’s wife, Daisy Khan, to dinner at Gracie Mansion to honor the Islamic celebration of Ramadan.
But in Union City, Lopez, a single mother, has another way of describing the man who has time to promote the so-called Ground Zero mosque, but does not seem to have time to answer her complaints about leaks in her toilet.
Lopez said in the report she has never met the would-be Ground Zero mosque imam but she says she has met Rauf’s wife Khan.
Lopez said she remembers Khan telling her that she and her husband did not have enough money to fix her leak and other problems in the building. What Lopez did not know was that at the same time, Rauf and Khan were trying to raise money for their mosque project on the other side of the Hudson.
According to the new reports, Rauf has a long history of taxpayer subsidies and grants for slum properties. There’s even a new revelation of a lawsuit settled in June over what the report terms a suit alleging fraud.
From the link:
[T]he suit alleged Rauf and Khan transferred ownership to another firm they owned and then obtained a $650,000 mortgage on the same building from a bank. After the building was damaged by fire in February 2008, Rauf and Khan stopped making mortgage payments to Cockinos, a former key executive at Daibes’ Mariner’s Bank. When Cockinos tried to foreclose, he discovered Rauf and Khan had switched ownership and filed suit alleging “fraud.”
The case was settled shortly before a June 28 trial, with Rauf and Khan agreeing to pay off the mortgage to Cockinos within the next few years, said the couple’s lawyer, Richard Rosa of Hackensack.
There is much more on Rauf and Khan’s current financial woes at the link.
The New York Post reported the site's developers owe hundreds of thousands in back taxes:
The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.
Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.
El-Gamal's company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.
Sounds like a good time to raise $100 million for a mosque.
Reuters is reporting New York is considering granting the group a reported $70 million in public funding.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Friday, August 27, 2010
EDITORIAL: Obama administration indicts America - Washington Times
EDITORIAL: Obama administration indicts America - Washington Times: "
Move over Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria. The State Department has made it official: The United States violates human rights. In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights detailing the progress and problems in dealing with human rights issues in this country. The document is a strange combination of left-wing history and White House talking points.
It describes how the United States discriminates against the disabled, homosexuals, women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics and those who don't speak English. There is the expected pandering to Muslims, noting that the government is committed to 'challenge misperceptions and discriminatory stereotypes, to prevent acts of vandalism and to combat hate crimes,' offenses that the American people evidently keep committing. And the current economic woes are blamed on the housing crisis, which itself was the result of 'discriminatory lending practices.' The implication is that if Americans had only been less racist, they would be enjoying prosperity today.
The report notes that until recently, the U.S. engaged in torture, unlawfully detained terrorist suspects and illegally spied on Americans communicating with terrorists - but the report assures readers that Mr. Obama has been putting a stop to all that.
The main impact of the document will be to confirm critiques of the United States as a haven for hatred and rights abuses. It turns the Obama administration's domestic political agenda into an international scorecard by which other countries can judge American 'progress.' And it makes it that much more difficult for those abroad who have held up the United States as a model for the kind of liberal, capitalistic democracy they would like to see in their own countries.
'Progress is our goal,' the report proclaims, 'and our expectation thereof is justified by the proven ability of our system of government to deliver the progress our people demand and deserve.' This reflects the general tone of a report that sees the state, not the people, as the source of American progress. All the problems discussed have a corresponding federal solution, whether health care, nutrition, housing or any other issue. To read the report, one could conclude that, to the Obama administration, big government is not just everything - it is the only thing.
The authors claim that the United States does not, by filing the report, 'acknowledge commonality with states that systematically abuse human rights,' but of course it does. Dictatorships, authoritarian regimes and theocracies competing for legitimacy on the world stage have been handed a potent new weapon, the kind of assessment they would never offer about their own governments. The report also cautions that it should not be read to reflect 'doubt in the ability of the American political system to deliver progress for its citizens.' The authors of the report should understand that the doubts in the Obama administration to deliver progress are already well-established. And they come from the American people, who don't need the United Nations telling them to shape up.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Move over Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria. The State Department has made it official: The United States violates human rights. In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights detailing the progress and problems in dealing with human rights issues in this country. The document is a strange combination of left-wing history and White House talking points.
It describes how the United States discriminates against the disabled, homosexuals, women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics and those who don't speak English. There is the expected pandering to Muslims, noting that the government is committed to 'challenge misperceptions and discriminatory stereotypes, to prevent acts of vandalism and to combat hate crimes,' offenses that the American people evidently keep committing. And the current economic woes are blamed on the housing crisis, which itself was the result of 'discriminatory lending practices.' The implication is that if Americans had only been less racist, they would be enjoying prosperity today.
The report notes that until recently, the U.S. engaged in torture, unlawfully detained terrorist suspects and illegally spied on Americans communicating with terrorists - but the report assures readers that Mr. Obama has been putting a stop to all that.
The main impact of the document will be to confirm critiques of the United States as a haven for hatred and rights abuses. It turns the Obama administration's domestic political agenda into an international scorecard by which other countries can judge American 'progress.' And it makes it that much more difficult for those abroad who have held up the United States as a model for the kind of liberal, capitalistic democracy they would like to see in their own countries.
'Progress is our goal,' the report proclaims, 'and our expectation thereof is justified by the proven ability of our system of government to deliver the progress our people demand and deserve.' This reflects the general tone of a report that sees the state, not the people, as the source of American progress. All the problems discussed have a corresponding federal solution, whether health care, nutrition, housing or any other issue. To read the report, one could conclude that, to the Obama administration, big government is not just everything - it is the only thing.
The authors claim that the United States does not, by filing the report, 'acknowledge commonality with states that systematically abuse human rights,' but of course it does. Dictatorships, authoritarian regimes and theocracies competing for legitimacy on the world stage have been handed a potent new weapon, the kind of assessment they would never offer about their own governments. The report also cautions that it should not be read to reflect 'doubt in the ability of the American political system to deliver progress for its citizens.' The authors of the report should understand that the doubts in the Obama administration to deliver progress are already well-established. And they come from the American people, who don't need the United Nations telling them to shape up.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
MSNBC Swears to Allah that Obama's Not A Muslim - HUMAN EVENTS
MSNBC Swears to Allah that Obama's Not A Muslim - HUMAN EVENTS: "
MSNBC's Monday programming was dedicated to denouncing Sen. Mitch McConnell's response to a question about whether Obama is a Muslim.
McConnell said: 'We all have to rely on the word of (Barack Obama) -- something about as reliable as a credit default swap.'
No, I'm sorry, that's what The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan said about whether Trig Palin was really Sarah Palin's child.
McConnell responded by demanding that Obama be fired -- or at least have his security clearance suspended.
No, no -- wrong again: That was Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Chuck Schumer, respectively, not taking Karl Rove at his word when he said he had not released Valerie Plame's name to the press. (It turned out Rove was telling the truth; it was Richard Armitage, and it wasn't a crime.)
What McConnell actually said in response to the Muslim question was: 'The president says he's a Christian. I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute.'
Over at MSNBC, that's Republican code for: 'He's a Muslim!'
North Korean TV's Ed Schultz hysterically babbled: 'McConnell gave cover. That's what he did. He gave cover to all those low information voters out there who still believe this garbage about President Obama being a Muslim. ... The Republican leadership just loves to feed the fire.'
Chris Matthews was so impressed with Schultz's nonsensical argument that he spent the entire hour on NKTV's 'Hardball' making the same one: McConnell had expressed insufficient fervor when he said he believed Obama was a Christian! (Perhaps if McConnell had added something about a thrill running up his leg ...)
The statement 'I take him at his word,' Matthews said, was a 'pitch-perfect dog whistle to the haters.' He continued: 'Yes, sure, whatever he says. Right. This is not about belief. It's an accusation that President Obama is not one of us. The right wing's attempt to de-Americanize the president.'
What else is there besides Obama's word? If Obama suddenly announced that he was a Muslim -- or a Buddhist -- what evidence would Matthews cite to prove him wrong?
Meanwhile, liberals absolutely refuse to take Republicans at their word when they identify their own children. Or deny leaking a low-level CIA functionary's name to the press. Or when they deny they are racists.
Indeed, Matthews' guest, Howard Fineman of Newsweek, accused the entire state of Kentucky of bigotry to explain McConnell's 'crafted' words.
Kentucky, Fineman said, is 'a state where the nativist appeal outside of Louisville really works big-time.' The Republicans, he said, are 'going to use whatever fear message they can. It's aimed at Kentucky, for sure.'
I believe the Bluegrass state has just been called 'nativist' without any evidence at all! Was Kentucky's father a nativist? Was it educated in a nativist madrassa as a child? Did Kentucky just endorse the idea of a nativist cultural center at Ground Zero?
On the following night's 'Hardball,' Tuesday, Matthews and his guest, The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page, refused to take Glenn Beck at his word when he said that he picked the day for his Lincoln Memorial rally without realizing it was the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech. (Everybody knows the 47th anniversary is the big one!)
Accusations of racism apparently do not require the ironclad proof demanded for accusations that someone is a Muslim.
And there's a lot more evidence that Obama's a Muslim than Republicans are racists. Let's compare:
Evidence for the Proposition That Obama's a Muslim: His father was a Muslim; his mother, an atheist, married two Muslims; he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia from age 6 to 10; and, during the campaign, he proudly posted on his webpage his statement that America is 'no longer' a Christian nation, a statement he has repeated as president, while announcing on French TV that America is 'one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.'
Evidence for the Proposition That Republicans Are Racist: (Nothing so far.)
Evidence for the Proposition That Liberals Lie About Republicans Being Racist: Video of a supporter of Rand Paul's opponent pretending to be a racist Paul supporter; Oregon public school teacher Jason Levin caught operating a website asking liberals to show up at Tea Parties pretending to be right-wing racists; The New York Times' Maureen Dowd claiming she heard Rep. Joe Wilson shout, 'You lie, boy!' when he shouted 'You lie!' during Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress; and the mainstream media lying about civil rights hero John Lewis being called the N-word 15 times at an anti-ObamaCare protest, with no one ever being able to produce a videotape, despite a $100,000 reward.
If Republicans played by liberal rules, they'd just call Obama a racist, who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press, is not Sasha's father, and smokes Newports, not Kools.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
MSNBC's Monday programming was dedicated to denouncing Sen. Mitch McConnell's response to a question about whether Obama is a Muslim.
McConnell said: 'We all have to rely on the word of (Barack Obama) -- something about as reliable as a credit default swap.'
No, I'm sorry, that's what The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan said about whether Trig Palin was really Sarah Palin's child.
McConnell responded by demanding that Obama be fired -- or at least have his security clearance suspended.
No, no -- wrong again: That was Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Chuck Schumer, respectively, not taking Karl Rove at his word when he said he had not released Valerie Plame's name to the press. (It turned out Rove was telling the truth; it was Richard Armitage, and it wasn't a crime.)
What McConnell actually said in response to the Muslim question was: 'The president says he's a Christian. I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute.'
Over at MSNBC, that's Republican code for: 'He's a Muslim!'
North Korean TV's Ed Schultz hysterically babbled: 'McConnell gave cover. That's what he did. He gave cover to all those low information voters out there who still believe this garbage about President Obama being a Muslim. ... The Republican leadership just loves to feed the fire.'
Chris Matthews was so impressed with Schultz's nonsensical argument that he spent the entire hour on NKTV's 'Hardball' making the same one: McConnell had expressed insufficient fervor when he said he believed Obama was a Christian! (Perhaps if McConnell had added something about a thrill running up his leg ...)
The statement 'I take him at his word,' Matthews said, was a 'pitch-perfect dog whistle to the haters.' He continued: 'Yes, sure, whatever he says. Right. This is not about belief. It's an accusation that President Obama is not one of us. The right wing's attempt to de-Americanize the president.'
What else is there besides Obama's word? If Obama suddenly announced that he was a Muslim -- or a Buddhist -- what evidence would Matthews cite to prove him wrong?
Meanwhile, liberals absolutely refuse to take Republicans at their word when they identify their own children. Or deny leaking a low-level CIA functionary's name to the press. Or when they deny they are racists.
Indeed, Matthews' guest, Howard Fineman of Newsweek, accused the entire state of Kentucky of bigotry to explain McConnell's 'crafted' words.
Kentucky, Fineman said, is 'a state where the nativist appeal outside of Louisville really works big-time.' The Republicans, he said, are 'going to use whatever fear message they can. It's aimed at Kentucky, for sure.'
I believe the Bluegrass state has just been called 'nativist' without any evidence at all! Was Kentucky's father a nativist? Was it educated in a nativist madrassa as a child? Did Kentucky just endorse the idea of a nativist cultural center at Ground Zero?
On the following night's 'Hardball,' Tuesday, Matthews and his guest, The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page, refused to take Glenn Beck at his word when he said that he picked the day for his Lincoln Memorial rally without realizing it was the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech. (Everybody knows the 47th anniversary is the big one!)
Accusations of racism apparently do not require the ironclad proof demanded for accusations that someone is a Muslim.
And there's a lot more evidence that Obama's a Muslim than Republicans are racists. Let's compare:
Evidence for the Proposition That Obama's a Muslim: His father was a Muslim; his mother, an atheist, married two Muslims; he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia from age 6 to 10; and, during the campaign, he proudly posted on his webpage his statement that America is 'no longer' a Christian nation, a statement he has repeated as president, while announcing on French TV that America is 'one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.'
Evidence for the Proposition That Republicans Are Racist: (Nothing so far.)
Evidence for the Proposition That Liberals Lie About Republicans Being Racist: Video of a supporter of Rand Paul's opponent pretending to be a racist Paul supporter; Oregon public school teacher Jason Levin caught operating a website asking liberals to show up at Tea Parties pretending to be right-wing racists; The New York Times' Maureen Dowd claiming she heard Rep. Joe Wilson shout, 'You lie, boy!' when he shouted 'You lie!' during Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress; and the mainstream media lying about civil rights hero John Lewis being called the N-word 15 times at an anti-ObamaCare protest, with no one ever being able to produce a videotape, despite a $100,000 reward.
If Republicans played by liberal rules, they'd just call Obama a racist, who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press, is not Sasha's father, and smokes Newports, not Kools.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Monday, August 23, 2010
Michelle Malkin » Democrat Rep. Corrine Brown gets a taste of her own sandbagging medicine
Michelle Malkin » Democrat Rep. Corrine Brown gets a taste of her own sandbagging medicine: "You’ll love this. Remember back in August 2008, when Democrat Rep. Corrine Brown commanded Jacksonville FL city officials to deliver sandbags to her home to protect her from rising floodwaters caused by Tropical Storm Fay? I blogged about the Jacksonville Times-Union story at the time:
U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown’s office asked Mayor John Peyton’s chief of staff to help protect her Jacksonville home from rising floodwater Friday.
Adam Hollingsworth, who once worked for Brown, told city workers to deliver sandbags to her home, something he now says was a judgment error. No one else would get such preferential treatment, he said when contacted by the Times-Union, and Brown will be billed by the city for reimbursement.
Hollingsworth also told city workers to deliver sandbags to City Councilwoman Denise Lee, this time unsolicited.
Peyton did not condemn Hollingworth’s actions, saying Friday he was “delighted our public works employees were able to help save these homes.”
Ronnie Simmons, Brown’s chief of staff, said the congresswoman’s area director called the city’s Public Works Office and asked for help. He said he thought the city offered sandbags to residents whose homes were being flooded.
…About a dozen white sandbags were stacked in front of Brown’s garage Friday night. A man outside the house Friday night told the Times-Union the bags were not delivered by the city. He was wearing a dark blue Emergency Operations Center shirt but said he didn’t work for the city.
Well, residents there have not forgotten her arrogance and abuse of office. And neither has her GOP challenger, Dean Black. He has launched a humorous “Stop the Sandbagging” campaign to remind voters of Brown’s hubris. She’s not laughing:
One day after her political opponent launched a tongue-in-cheek campaign to unseat her, Rep. Corrine Brown fired back.
Dean Black launched a campaign Monday called “Stop the Sandbagging.” It’s a campaign that reminded voters of an August 2008 controversy when Brown requested sand bags be brought to her home during Tropical Storm Fay. Though she denied receiving special treatment from the city, her neighbors said similar requests from them had no response.
Black said that when his supporters contribute $24.95 to his campaign, he will have sand bags delivered to Brown’s home. However, Brown said Tuesday that she will seek prosecution if Black follows through on his pledge.
“Because this is not no game,” Brown said. “Don’t bring no trash to my yard!”
She said if the sand bags come, she is prepared to call the police.
Black is not backing down. Two thumbs up for this clever and inspired campaigning.
Congresswoman Sandbag has gotten a taste of her own medicine.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown’s office asked Mayor John Peyton’s chief of staff to help protect her Jacksonville home from rising floodwater Friday.
Adam Hollingsworth, who once worked for Brown, told city workers to deliver sandbags to her home, something he now says was a judgment error. No one else would get such preferential treatment, he said when contacted by the Times-Union, and Brown will be billed by the city for reimbursement.
Hollingsworth also told city workers to deliver sandbags to City Councilwoman Denise Lee, this time unsolicited.
Peyton did not condemn Hollingworth’s actions, saying Friday he was “delighted our public works employees were able to help save these homes.”
Ronnie Simmons, Brown’s chief of staff, said the congresswoman’s area director called the city’s Public Works Office and asked for help. He said he thought the city offered sandbags to residents whose homes were being flooded.
…About a dozen white sandbags were stacked in front of Brown’s garage Friday night. A man outside the house Friday night told the Times-Union the bags were not delivered by the city. He was wearing a dark blue Emergency Operations Center shirt but said he didn’t work for the city.
Well, residents there have not forgotten her arrogance and abuse of office. And neither has her GOP challenger, Dean Black. He has launched a humorous “Stop the Sandbagging” campaign to remind voters of Brown’s hubris. She’s not laughing:
One day after her political opponent launched a tongue-in-cheek campaign to unseat her, Rep. Corrine Brown fired back.
Dean Black launched a campaign Monday called “Stop the Sandbagging.” It’s a campaign that reminded voters of an August 2008 controversy when Brown requested sand bags be brought to her home during Tropical Storm Fay. Though she denied receiving special treatment from the city, her neighbors said similar requests from them had no response.
Black said that when his supporters contribute $24.95 to his campaign, he will have sand bags delivered to Brown’s home. However, Brown said Tuesday that she will seek prosecution if Black follows through on his pledge.
“Because this is not no game,” Brown said. “Don’t bring no trash to my yard!”
She said if the sand bags come, she is prepared to call the police.
Black is not backing down. Two thumbs up for this clever and inspired campaigning.
Congresswoman Sandbag has gotten a taste of her own medicine.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Hey, Obama. This Is God Callling. - HUMAN EVENTS
Hey, Obama. This Is God Callling. - HUMAN EVENTS:
"I know you’re getting ready to head out on vacation (again). But we need to talk.
There’s a Time poll out today showing that 24% of Americans think you’re Muslim (the media reports stress that belief is incorrect).
Why is it that everyone in the country knows you like to golf/play basketball, but they don’t know your religion? Don’t blame it on the media or George W. Bush. Blame it on how you prioritize your time.
I’ve given you the freedom to worship however you choose. But choosing to worship as a Christian comes with responsibilities, particularly if you’ve also chosen to put yourself in a public leadership position.
And right now, looking at your record, you seem to be doing anything but leading by example.
It’s impossible for people to judge without a doubt what’s in your heart and what your intentions are. That’s my job. But that’s also why I’ve set up a system on earth where actions speak as loud as words. So let’s make correcting your record a top priority.
First, take your kids to church. Regularly. Particularly on Christmas. You missed last year. Think I didn’t notice?
I know you’re worried about inconveniencing church-goers in D.C. That’s gracious of you. But looking at your dismal approval ratings, I think more Americans -- even those dealing with the inconvenience -- would feel better seeing you in church asking for help rather than you just staying away.
Second, when you’re in church, actually pay attention to what the pastor is saying. I’m not really sure how you stayed 20 years at a church where the pastor’s philosophy was more radical than anything even the Democrats have accused the Tea Party of. I don’t know how you let a man baptize your daughters who believes God should “damn” America. That tells me your Christian faith may not be very important to you.
Third, if you can fit in this many games of golf, you can fit in going to church more regularly.
I understand you want to be ecumenical. But a great tool in being ecumenical is being the best example of your own faith. People respect someone who acts like they believe what they’re saying.
So, have a good vacation. See you on Sunday?
~ God
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
"I know you’re getting ready to head out on vacation (again). But we need to talk.
There’s a Time poll out today showing that 24% of Americans think you’re Muslim (the media reports stress that belief is incorrect).
Why is it that everyone in the country knows you like to golf/play basketball, but they don’t know your religion? Don’t blame it on the media or George W. Bush. Blame it on how you prioritize your time.
I’ve given you the freedom to worship however you choose. But choosing to worship as a Christian comes with responsibilities, particularly if you’ve also chosen to put yourself in a public leadership position.
And right now, looking at your record, you seem to be doing anything but leading by example.
It’s impossible for people to judge without a doubt what’s in your heart and what your intentions are. That’s my job. But that’s also why I’ve set up a system on earth where actions speak as loud as words. So let’s make correcting your record a top priority.
First, take your kids to church. Regularly. Particularly on Christmas. You missed last year. Think I didn’t notice?
I know you’re worried about inconveniencing church-goers in D.C. That’s gracious of you. But looking at your dismal approval ratings, I think more Americans -- even those dealing with the inconvenience -- would feel better seeing you in church asking for help rather than you just staying away.
Second, when you’re in church, actually pay attention to what the pastor is saying. I’m not really sure how you stayed 20 years at a church where the pastor’s philosophy was more radical than anything even the Democrats have accused the Tea Party of. I don’t know how you let a man baptize your daughters who believes God should “damn” America. That tells me your Christian faith may not be very important to you.
Third, if you can fit in this many games of golf, you can fit in going to church more regularly.
I understand you want to be ecumenical. But a great tool in being ecumenical is being the best example of your own faith. People respect someone who acts like they believe what they’re saying.
So, have a good vacation. See you on Sunday?
~ God
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Monday, August 16, 2010
Political Islam // Articles // The Mosque: A State within a State
Political Islam // Articles // The Mosque: A State within a State: "THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE
by Vijay Kumar
THE KABAH IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kabah was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.
On the day of its capture, Mohammed delivered an address at the Kabah in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:
“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Mohammed
Mohammed’s address at the Kabah overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Koran 3:85
Although the rightful owners of the Kabah are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kabah today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Mohammed: “currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian.”
All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kabah, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall—the mihrab—that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kabah, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam.
Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam
The Koran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kabah, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.
The Koran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Koran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.
As a political document, the Koran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.
Central to the Koran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.
“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Koran 5:51
“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” —Koran 9:5
All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.
The Koran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Koran and Islamic Sharia law.
The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Mohammed) and the Sira (the official biographies of Mohammed) are the other political documents that, along with the Koran, constitute the basis for Islam’s Sharia law.
“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” —Syed Qutb
Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” —Koran 9:29
Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.
Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:
“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh
Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies.
In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.
Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Mohammed, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations.
“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah.” —Koran 33:21
“War is deceit.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira
In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Mohammed wrote:
“If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing.” —Mohammed
In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote:
“It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security).” —Mohammed
These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism.
“When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” —Koran 17:16
In every instance where Islam has conquered and “destroyed utterly” a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kabah.
Mosques and the Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”
The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust.
The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.
Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.
There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.
Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:
“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas
All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.
Mosques and the Worldwide Islamic State
Islam is a de facto political state wherever it exists anywhere in the world. The Koran is its constitution. The Kabah is its seat of power, still in the control of the regime that occupied it in 630 A.D. All Muslims in the world, regardless of nationality, are required to travel to the Kabah at least once in their lifetime and pay homage to it.
The fact that nations and international political institutions in the world do not recognize Islam as a de jure state is irrelevant. Mohammed himself declared it as a state, and Islam’s own political documents declare it to be a state, and, ipso facto, it always is a state-within-a-state, governed by the Koran and Sharia law internally, anywhere that it has not yet gained full power and control.
“The Believers are but a single brotherhood.” —Koran 49:10
“A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” —Syed Qutb
“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” — Syed Abul A’ala Maududi
Just as our Constitution of the United States binds and identifies us as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous states, territories, political groups, and people, so the Koran binds and identifies all Islamic nations and all Muslims as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous nations, territories, political groups and people, regardless of geographic boundaries, whose seat of power is the occupied Kabah. All Islamic Imams, in every mosque everywhere in the world, are bound to the Koran as supreme law.
As we have seen, Islamic law gives Islamic Imams the power to order Muslims to fighting. The German Max Weber, who had considerable influence on international law and politics, defined “state” as that entity that has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”
Islam declares that the Koran and Sharia law are divine, and, as such, are the only “legitimate” law in the world. In that way, Islam “self-legitimizes” its right to use physical force anywhere in the world, and the right of every Imam in every mosque in the world to call for physical force and violence at any time. This makes every Imam in every mosque a military leader.
Islam is a state by every definition and theory, and is a state hostile to and at war with the United States of America and its Constitution.
Mosques and Treason and Sedition Against the U.S.
Islam’s political documents and law call for the overthrow of our Constitution and our man-made laws, and therefore for the overthrow of our government, which by definition constitutes sedition and treason. The Islamic documents call for the overthrow of our government—a protector of religious freedom and human rights—through violence:
“I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘there is no god but Allah.’” —Mohammed’s farewell address, 632
“I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:196 Narrated Abu Huraira
“He who fights so that Allah’s Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah’s cause.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 1:3:125 Narrated Abu Musa
“I asked the Prophet [Mohammed], ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 3:46:694 Narrated Abu Dhar
“And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)”. —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 6:60:40 Narrated Nafi’
“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.” —Koran 3.151
“I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” —Koran 8:12
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” —Koran 8:60
The Koran, as the constitution of Islam and Muslims, is diametrically opposite to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. According to Islam and Muslims, the Koran is divine law, uncorrupted and incorruptible, whereas the United States Constitution is man-made and is not infallible, and therefore is corrupt. The U.S. Constitution is the antithesis of the Koran; therefore Muslims have no obligation to obey it.
A mosque in the United States is a command and control center of a foreign political and military state that seeks the overthrow of our government, and an Imam in a mosque is a political and military representative of a foreign state that calls for the overthrow of the United States.
The laws of the United States provide specific criminal penalties for sedition and treason. These laws are not only applicable to those advocating and calling for the overthrow of our Constitution and our government; they are applicable to anyone who gives “aid or comfort” to such declared enemies of the United States, or who “organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons” so engaged. The terms “organizes” and “organize” extend to “the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.”
Mosques are just such units.
______________________
Vijay Kumar is a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress from Tennessee's 5th District. A native of Hyderabad, India, Mr. Kumar lived in Iran during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when he came to the United States. A naturalized American citizen, Mr. Kumar has lived in Nashville, Tennessee for 24 years. He has been married to his wife, Robin, a native of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for 27 years, and they have three children, two of whom are adopted.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
by Vijay Kumar
THE KABAH IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kabah was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.
On the day of its capture, Mohammed delivered an address at the Kabah in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:
“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Mohammed
Mohammed’s address at the Kabah overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Koran 3:85
Although the rightful owners of the Kabah are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kabah today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Mohammed: “currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian.”
All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kabah, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall—the mihrab—that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kabah, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam.
Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam
The Koran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kabah, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.
The Koran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Koran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.
As a political document, the Koran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.
Central to the Koran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.
“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Koran 5:51
“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” —Koran 9:5
All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.
The Koran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Koran and Islamic Sharia law.
The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Mohammed) and the Sira (the official biographies of Mohammed) are the other political documents that, along with the Koran, constitute the basis for Islam’s Sharia law.
“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” —Syed Qutb
Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” —Koran 9:29
Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.
Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:
“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh
Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies.
In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.
Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Mohammed, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations.
“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah.” —Koran 33:21
“War is deceit.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira
In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Mohammed wrote:
“If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing.” —Mohammed
In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote:
“It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security).” —Mohammed
These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism.
“When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” —Koran 17:16
In every instance where Islam has conquered and “destroyed utterly” a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kabah.
Mosques and the Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”
The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust.
The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.
Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.
There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.
Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:
“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas
All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.
Mosques and the Worldwide Islamic State
Islam is a de facto political state wherever it exists anywhere in the world. The Koran is its constitution. The Kabah is its seat of power, still in the control of the regime that occupied it in 630 A.D. All Muslims in the world, regardless of nationality, are required to travel to the Kabah at least once in their lifetime and pay homage to it.
The fact that nations and international political institutions in the world do not recognize Islam as a de jure state is irrelevant. Mohammed himself declared it as a state, and Islam’s own political documents declare it to be a state, and, ipso facto, it always is a state-within-a-state, governed by the Koran and Sharia law internally, anywhere that it has not yet gained full power and control.
“The Believers are but a single brotherhood.” —Koran 49:10
“A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” —Syed Qutb
“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” — Syed Abul A’ala Maududi
Just as our Constitution of the United States binds and identifies us as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous states, territories, political groups, and people, so the Koran binds and identifies all Islamic nations and all Muslims as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous nations, territories, political groups and people, regardless of geographic boundaries, whose seat of power is the occupied Kabah. All Islamic Imams, in every mosque everywhere in the world, are bound to the Koran as supreme law.
As we have seen, Islamic law gives Islamic Imams the power to order Muslims to fighting. The German Max Weber, who had considerable influence on international law and politics, defined “state” as that entity that has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”
Islam declares that the Koran and Sharia law are divine, and, as such, are the only “legitimate” law in the world. In that way, Islam “self-legitimizes” its right to use physical force anywhere in the world, and the right of every Imam in every mosque in the world to call for physical force and violence at any time. This makes every Imam in every mosque a military leader.
Islam is a state by every definition and theory, and is a state hostile to and at war with the United States of America and its Constitution.
Mosques and Treason and Sedition Against the U.S.
Islam’s political documents and law call for the overthrow of our Constitution and our man-made laws, and therefore for the overthrow of our government, which by definition constitutes sedition and treason. The Islamic documents call for the overthrow of our government—a protector of religious freedom and human rights—through violence:
“I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘there is no god but Allah.’” —Mohammed’s farewell address, 632
“I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:196 Narrated Abu Huraira
“He who fights so that Allah’s Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah’s cause.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 1:3:125 Narrated Abu Musa
“I asked the Prophet [Mohammed], ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 3:46:694 Narrated Abu Dhar
“And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)”. —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 6:60:40 Narrated Nafi’
“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.” —Koran 3.151
“I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” —Koran 8:12
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” —Koran 8:60
The Koran, as the constitution of Islam and Muslims, is diametrically opposite to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. According to Islam and Muslims, the Koran is divine law, uncorrupted and incorruptible, whereas the United States Constitution is man-made and is not infallible, and therefore is corrupt. The U.S. Constitution is the antithesis of the Koran; therefore Muslims have no obligation to obey it.
A mosque in the United States is a command and control center of a foreign political and military state that seeks the overthrow of our government, and an Imam in a mosque is a political and military representative of a foreign state that calls for the overthrow of the United States.
The laws of the United States provide specific criminal penalties for sedition and treason. These laws are not only applicable to those advocating and calling for the overthrow of our Constitution and our government; they are applicable to anyone who gives “aid or comfort” to such declared enemies of the United States, or who “organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons” so engaged. The terms “organizes” and “organize” extend to “the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.”
Mosques are just such units.
______________________
Vijay Kumar is a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress from Tennessee's 5th District. A native of Hyderabad, India, Mr. Kumar lived in Iran during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when he came to the United States. A naturalized American citizen, Mr. Kumar has lived in Nashville, Tennessee for 24 years. He has been married to his wife, Robin, a native of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for 27 years, and they have three children, two of whom are adopted.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Political Islam
Political Islam: "Take the Acid Test for Islamophobia
July 28, 2010
A favorite comeback for someone who is critical of Islam is—you are Islamophobic. Never mind that the term phobic means an irrational fear. Really, the charge is that you are irrational AND a bigot. A bigot is immoral and a hater and has no possible reason for their views.
There is a cure for bigotry. If you are a bigot, learning about the subject of bigotry can cure it. Clint Eastwood’s character in Grand Torino started out as a bigot about the Hmong Vietnamese who moved in next door. As he got to know them, he changed and gave the ultimate sacrifice of his life to help them. The cure for his bigotry was getting to know more about his neighbors, the Hmong.
Notice this does not say that as you get to know them, you will always like them better. There are people and groups that the more you know them, the less you like them. As you see what they do and how they think, you may actually start to fear them. Not being a bigot doesn’t mean that you love everybody and what they do. In the sixties, the Black Panthers had a revolutionary, “stick it to the man”, image that was cool. However, the more you got to know them and see what they did, you learned that the Panthers were serious racist thugs and dangerous to society. So just because someone is “oppressed” does not mean that they are decent people.
Want to see if you are an Islamophobe? Let’s presume that you don’t like Islamic doctrine, Sharia law as an example, and would like to take the test to see if you are a bigot. Remember, if you are a bigot, then the more you get to know Islam, the better you will feel.
Here are some concepts from Islamic doctrine, so that you can understand it better. Islam says that non-Muslims are Kafirs. Allah hates Kafirs and He even plots against them. Kafirs can be tortured, deceived, enslaved, crucified, raped and robbed. How important are Kafirs to Islam? Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (his traditions). Look at how much of Islam is devoted to the Kafir:
If the Kafir is “bad”, then there is a lot of “bad”. How does your cultural sensitivity feel now? Feel any closer to Islam, any less afraid?
Maybe, you need a little more exposure to become warmer towards Islam. Jihad should cure your ills. Isn’t the jihad thing overblown? There are only a few verses about that, aren’t there? Look at the statistics:
Now that you are learning more about Islam, are your fears subsiding?
Still afraid? Every Muslim will tell you that Islam was the first ideology to give women their rights. If we take everything that is written about women in the Koran and rank it according to whether the woman is held in high status, equal status and lower status, we find:
How does the women’s issue strike you? Are you feeling more simpatico? Less Islamophobic?
So, you took the Islamophobia test. Now that you know Islam better, do you now understand and realize that your Islamophobia was bigoted hatred?
Surely, this test is biased. There must be some goodness in Islam for Kafirs. If you go through the Koran and pick out every single verse that offers good words, doesn’t that prove that Islam is good?
If every single verse that seems to promise good to Kafirs is counted up, then 2.6% of the verses offer good to Kafirs. But, wait! There is that contradiction and abrogation contradiction principle. The Koran is filled with verses that contradict each other and in every case of good verses, the 2.6%, are cancelled or abrogated, by later verses. The net result is 0%, nothing, is unmitigated good in the Koran for the Kafir.
You have finished the Islamophobe Test. Feel closer to Islam? Or more afraid? If you feel closer and warmer about Islam, then you were Islamophobic, but now you are cured. If not, then your fears are real, not a phobia. Islam is like the Black Panthers—the more you know, the less you like and the more you are afraid.
Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-acid-test-for-islamophobia/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
July 28, 2010
A favorite comeback for someone who is critical of Islam is—you are Islamophobic. Never mind that the term phobic means an irrational fear. Really, the charge is that you are irrational AND a bigot. A bigot is immoral and a hater and has no possible reason for their views.
There is a cure for bigotry. If you are a bigot, learning about the subject of bigotry can cure it. Clint Eastwood’s character in Grand Torino started out as a bigot about the Hmong Vietnamese who moved in next door. As he got to know them, he changed and gave the ultimate sacrifice of his life to help them. The cure for his bigotry was getting to know more about his neighbors, the Hmong.
Notice this does not say that as you get to know them, you will always like them better. There are people and groups that the more you know them, the less you like them. As you see what they do and how they think, you may actually start to fear them. Not being a bigot doesn’t mean that you love everybody and what they do. In the sixties, the Black Panthers had a revolutionary, “stick it to the man”, image that was cool. However, the more you got to know them and see what they did, you learned that the Panthers were serious racist thugs and dangerous to society. So just because someone is “oppressed” does not mean that they are decent people.
Want to see if you are an Islamophobe? Let’s presume that you don’t like Islamic doctrine, Sharia law as an example, and would like to take the test to see if you are a bigot. Remember, if you are a bigot, then the more you get to know Islam, the better you will feel.
Here are some concepts from Islamic doctrine, so that you can understand it better. Islam says that non-Muslims are Kafirs. Allah hates Kafirs and He even plots against them. Kafirs can be tortured, deceived, enslaved, crucified, raped and robbed. How important are Kafirs to Islam? Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (his traditions). Look at how much of Islam is devoted to the Kafir:
If the Kafir is “bad”, then there is a lot of “bad”. How does your cultural sensitivity feel now? Feel any closer to Islam, any less afraid?
Maybe, you need a little more exposure to become warmer towards Islam. Jihad should cure your ills. Isn’t the jihad thing overblown? There are only a few verses about that, aren’t there? Look at the statistics:
Now that you are learning more about Islam, are your fears subsiding?
Still afraid? Every Muslim will tell you that Islam was the first ideology to give women their rights. If we take everything that is written about women in the Koran and rank it according to whether the woman is held in high status, equal status and lower status, we find:
How does the women’s issue strike you? Are you feeling more simpatico? Less Islamophobic?
So, you took the Islamophobia test. Now that you know Islam better, do you now understand and realize that your Islamophobia was bigoted hatred?
Surely, this test is biased. There must be some goodness in Islam for Kafirs. If you go through the Koran and pick out every single verse that offers good words, doesn’t that prove that Islam is good?
If every single verse that seems to promise good to Kafirs is counted up, then 2.6% of the verses offer good to Kafirs. But, wait! There is that contradiction and abrogation contradiction principle. The Koran is filled with verses that contradict each other and in every case of good verses, the 2.6%, are cancelled or abrogated, by later verses. The net result is 0%, nothing, is unmitigated good in the Koran for the Kafir.
You have finished the Islamophobe Test. Feel closer to Islam? Or more afraid? If you feel closer and warmer about Islam, then you were Islamophobic, but now you are cured. If not, then your fears are real, not a phobia. Islam is like the Black Panthers—the more you know, the less you like and the more you are afraid.
Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-acid-test-for-islamophobia/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Liberals Giddy Over Perceived Good News by:J.J. Jackson | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010
Liberals Giddy Over Perceived Good News by:J.J. Jackson | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010: "Any time I get a couple emails from liberals with nearly the exact same wording of a specific talking point I know that someone is feeding them what to say. Last week, while I was on vacation, the talking point appears to be that the 71,000 net jobs gained by private companies means that the recovery is well underway and the Obamanomics, the policy of tax and bailout, has worked.
Of course, this is not the first time liberals have tried this line of attack on our stagnant economy. The typical cycle goes like this. A slew of bad news is interrupted by some singular piece of good news, or at least perceived good news when taken out of context. This leads to claims that everything is getting better and how great President Obama is. I get lots of emails telling me how it is all over for the “right wing” and that socialism has been proven to be the great savior of America. Quickly however more and more bad news comes out and quickly overwhelms this singular tidbit, the giddy emails cease and the country continues on in misery.
Here is why that report about 71,000 new private sector jobs is a piece of news taken out of context to make it sound like good news. Just look at the overall numbers to see why we are in deep doo-doo. I will used the “seasonally adjusted” data in this article because that is what is being touted when they talk about the unemployment rate hanging steady at 9.5%. Personally I think the “seasonally adjusted” numbers are just a way to massage the raw data and hide true numbers. For example, if you look at the raw, seasonally unadjusted numbers for the past month the unemployment rate rose from 9.6% in June to 9.7% in July. Incidentally that is the same as it was a year ago. Incidentally incidentally the true unemployment rate including under employed souls is nearly twice this percentage.
Now, let’s look at why that 71,000 new private sector jobs are nothing to get excited about. In fact they very well could be a blip and I guarantee you that they have nothing to do with Obamanomics. Here are the seasonally adjusted numbers for the civilian labor force (source Department of Labor http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm )
Employment status, sex, and age Seasonally adjusted(1)
July Mar. Apr. May June July
2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
Civilian noninstitutional population 235,870 237,159 237,329 237,499 237,690 237,890
Civilian labor force 154,351 153,910 154,715 154,393 153,741 153,560
Participation rate 65.4 64.9 65.2 65.0 64.7 64.6
Employed 139,817 138,905 139,455 139,420 139,119 138,960
Employment-population ratio 59.3 58.6 58.8 58.7 58.5 58.4
Unemployed 14,534 15,005 15,260 14,973 14,623 14,599
Unemployment rate 9.4 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5
Not in labor force 81,519 83,249 82,614 83,107 83,949 84,330
Persons who currently want a job 5,978 6,044 5,951 5,734 5,895 5,886
In July of 2010 the government was shedding Census jobs like the plague. Some 200,000 total government workers went of which about 130,000 were Census workers. Now look at the numbers from July 2009 to July 2010. We are 791,000 workers less than a year ago and out noninstitutional population is up 2,020,000 in the same time (see above chart).
This all translates to an employment ratio nearly a whole percentage point lower than a year ago and even one tenth of a percent lower than in June.
Lots of people are simply, giving up looking for work. That is the only reason the numbers, cooked as they are, look as good as they do. The number of people who “want a job” is also down from a year ago after being at just over 6,000,000 in March of this year.
Is any of this good news? Heck no!
And if you think that 71,000 private sector jobs is a “good sign” that President Obama’s misplaced and highly unconstitutional economic actions are working then you need to think again. To just get back to the number of jobs we had a year ago we would need 11 months of this anemic growth. And that is, might I remind you, just to get back to a year ago. To get back to two or three years ago? Well, you do the math on that.
Now let the giddiness subside.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Of course, this is not the first time liberals have tried this line of attack on our stagnant economy. The typical cycle goes like this. A slew of bad news is interrupted by some singular piece of good news, or at least perceived good news when taken out of context. This leads to claims that everything is getting better and how great President Obama is. I get lots of emails telling me how it is all over for the “right wing” and that socialism has been proven to be the great savior of America. Quickly however more and more bad news comes out and quickly overwhelms this singular tidbit, the giddy emails cease and the country continues on in misery.
Here is why that report about 71,000 new private sector jobs is a piece of news taken out of context to make it sound like good news. Just look at the overall numbers to see why we are in deep doo-doo. I will used the “seasonally adjusted” data in this article because that is what is being touted when they talk about the unemployment rate hanging steady at 9.5%. Personally I think the “seasonally adjusted” numbers are just a way to massage the raw data and hide true numbers. For example, if you look at the raw, seasonally unadjusted numbers for the past month the unemployment rate rose from 9.6% in June to 9.7% in July. Incidentally that is the same as it was a year ago. Incidentally incidentally the true unemployment rate including under employed souls is nearly twice this percentage.
Now, let’s look at why that 71,000 new private sector jobs are nothing to get excited about. In fact they very well could be a blip and I guarantee you that they have nothing to do with Obamanomics. Here are the seasonally adjusted numbers for the civilian labor force (source Department of Labor http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm )
Employment status, sex, and age Seasonally adjusted(1)
July Mar. Apr. May June July
2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
Civilian noninstitutional population 235,870 237,159 237,329 237,499 237,690 237,890
Civilian labor force 154,351 153,910 154,715 154,393 153,741 153,560
Participation rate 65.4 64.9 65.2 65.0 64.7 64.6
Employed 139,817 138,905 139,455 139,420 139,119 138,960
Employment-population ratio 59.3 58.6 58.8 58.7 58.5 58.4
Unemployed 14,534 15,005 15,260 14,973 14,623 14,599
Unemployment rate 9.4 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5
Not in labor force 81,519 83,249 82,614 83,107 83,949 84,330
Persons who currently want a job 5,978 6,044 5,951 5,734 5,895 5,886
In July of 2010 the government was shedding Census jobs like the plague. Some 200,000 total government workers went of which about 130,000 were Census workers. Now look at the numbers from July 2009 to July 2010. We are 791,000 workers less than a year ago and out noninstitutional population is up 2,020,000 in the same time (see above chart).
This all translates to an employment ratio nearly a whole percentage point lower than a year ago and even one tenth of a percent lower than in June.
Lots of people are simply, giving up looking for work. That is the only reason the numbers, cooked as they are, look as good as they do. The number of people who “want a job” is also down from a year ago after being at just over 6,000,000 in March of this year.
Is any of this good news? Heck no!
And if you think that 71,000 private sector jobs is a “good sign” that President Obama’s misplaced and highly unconstitutional economic actions are working then you need to think again. To just get back to the number of jobs we had a year ago we would need 11 months of this anemic growth. And that is, might I remind you, just to get back to a year ago. To get back to two or three years ago? Well, you do the math on that.
Now let the giddiness subside.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Monday, August 9, 2010
While Obama preaches sacrifice, his family frolics in Spain
While Obama preaches sacrifice, his family frolics in Spain: "While Obama preaches sacrifice, his family frolics in Spain
PETER NICHOLAS AND KATHERINE SKIBA, WASHINGTON
August 8, 2010
First Lady Michelle Obama and her daughter Sasha spent Saturday morning sight-seeing in the historic Spanish city of Ronda.
AS THE US economy endures high unemployment and a jittery stock market, President Barack Obama has preached sacrifice and fiscal discipline. But the pictures coming out of a sun-splashed Spanish resort may be sending a different message.
First lady Michelle Obama is in the midst of a five-day trip to a luxury resort along with a handful of friends, her younger daughter, aides and Secret Service. Her office said the Obamas would pay for personal expenses, but would not reveal the taxpayer cost for the government employees.
Elected officials - Democrats and Republicans - were reluctant to weigh in, not wanting to appear critical of the President's wife. But the trip provided fodder for television news shows, talk-show hosts and bloggers. Critics portrayed the foreign getaway as tone-deaf to the deep economic anxiety back home. Every first family takes vacations: the criticism aimed at Mrs Obama is that she chose to visit a foreign country rather than remain in the US and support its fragile economy.
Sasha, daughter of U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, bathes in the Mediterranean Sea in Estepona during their vacation in southern Spain. Picture: Reuters/Jon Nazca
Sasha, daughter of U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, bathes in the Mediterranean Sea in Estepona during their vacation in southern Spain. Picture: Reuters/Jon Nazca
Just last month, Mrs Obama flew to the Florida panhandle, a tourist draw hit hard by the oil spill crisis, and delivered the message that for parents ''looking for things to do with their kids this summer … this is a wonderful place to visit''.
The opulence of the European trip also has drawn scrutiny. Mr Obama has urged frugality in lean economic times. He once cautioned that families saving money for college shouldn't ''blow a bunch of cash in Vegas''.
Mrs Obama is staying at the Hotel Villa Padierna, a Ritz-Carlton resort outside Marbella. It has two golf courses, a spa with Turkish baths, views of the Mediterranean and a restaurant specialising in avant-garde fare. Room rates start at $US400 ($A436.73) and rise to $US6500 for a two-bedroom villa.
Michelle Obama leaves the Spanish resort. Pictures: Reuters, AFP
Michelle Obama leaves the Spanish resort. Picture: AFP
Mrs Obama flew in on a type of aircraft used by Vice-President Joe Biden. It costs the government $US11,555 an hour to operate the plane, according to the air force. Assuming a nearly eight-hour flight to nearby Malaga, the total round-trip cost of the flight is about $US178,000.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
PETER NICHOLAS AND KATHERINE SKIBA, WASHINGTON
August 8, 2010
First Lady Michelle Obama and her daughter Sasha spent Saturday morning sight-seeing in the historic Spanish city of Ronda.
AS THE US economy endures high unemployment and a jittery stock market, President Barack Obama has preached sacrifice and fiscal discipline. But the pictures coming out of a sun-splashed Spanish resort may be sending a different message.
First lady Michelle Obama is in the midst of a five-day trip to a luxury resort along with a handful of friends, her younger daughter, aides and Secret Service. Her office said the Obamas would pay for personal expenses, but would not reveal the taxpayer cost for the government employees.
Elected officials - Democrats and Republicans - were reluctant to weigh in, not wanting to appear critical of the President's wife. But the trip provided fodder for television news shows, talk-show hosts and bloggers. Critics portrayed the foreign getaway as tone-deaf to the deep economic anxiety back home. Every first family takes vacations: the criticism aimed at Mrs Obama is that she chose to visit a foreign country rather than remain in the US and support its fragile economy.
Sasha, daughter of U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, bathes in the Mediterranean Sea in Estepona during their vacation in southern Spain. Picture: Reuters/Jon Nazca
Sasha, daughter of U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, bathes in the Mediterranean Sea in Estepona during their vacation in southern Spain. Picture: Reuters/Jon Nazca
Just last month, Mrs Obama flew to the Florida panhandle, a tourist draw hit hard by the oil spill crisis, and delivered the message that for parents ''looking for things to do with their kids this summer … this is a wonderful place to visit''.
The opulence of the European trip also has drawn scrutiny. Mr Obama has urged frugality in lean economic times. He once cautioned that families saving money for college shouldn't ''blow a bunch of cash in Vegas''.
Mrs Obama is staying at the Hotel Villa Padierna, a Ritz-Carlton resort outside Marbella. It has two golf courses, a spa with Turkish baths, views of the Mediterranean and a restaurant specialising in avant-garde fare. Room rates start at $US400 ($A436.73) and rise to $US6500 for a two-bedroom villa.
Michelle Obama leaves the Spanish resort. Pictures: Reuters, AFP
Michelle Obama leaves the Spanish resort. Picture: AFP
Mrs Obama flew in on a type of aircraft used by Vice-President Joe Biden. It costs the government $US11,555 an hour to operate the plane, according to the air force. Assuming a nearly eight-hour flight to nearby Malaga, the total round-trip cost of the flight is about $US178,000.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)